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 AA10311; Mon, 2 Aug 93 08:45:39 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA26909; Mon, 2 Aug 93 09:44:48 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 2 Aug 93 9:45:09 EDT From: JOVANOVIC@CUCCFA.CCC.COLUMBIA.EDU To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: RE: Running Skill and Sprinting Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1993 9:43:41 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <628C9177717@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Another option might be to simply say that you can double your movement rate in noncombat conditions. In rough terrain, with people fighting all around you, hitting top sprint speed would probably be a bit rough. Oliver  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA11274; Mon, 2 Aug 93 09:09:10 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA27917; Mon, 2 Aug 93 10:08:39 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 2 Aug 93 10:08:42 EDT From: JOVANOVIC@CUCCFA.CCC.COLUMBIA.EDU To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Rumors Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1993 10:07:45 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <6292E607737@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> If I hear something definite, I'll let people know. As of now, I haven't. Oliver  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA12827; Mon, 2 Aug 93 09:52:08 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA29935; Mon, 2 Aug 93 10:51:27 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 2 Aug 93 10:51:32 EDT From: burt@ptltd.com (Burton Choinski) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Rumors Date: Mon, 2 Aug 93 10:47:27 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <629E497233C@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> While rumors are flying, any rumor when the next draft will be let out? :) -- Burton  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA14204; Mon, 2 Aug 93 10:23:45 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01372; Mon, 2 Aug 93 11:23:11 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 2 Aug 93 11:23:14 EDT From: Anthony Ragan To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: more rumors...... Date: Mon, 02 Aug 93 08:23 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <62A6D0B32E4@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Loren is a God Learner! --Anthony  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA17518; Mon, 2 Aug 93 11:16:34 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA03762; Mon, 2 Aug 93 12:16:02 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 2 Aug 93 12:16:04 EDT From: curtiss@netcom.com (Curtis Shenton) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: more rumors...... Date: Mon, 2 Aug 93 9:16:40 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <62B4E246EFC@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> > > > Loren is a God Learner! > > --Anthony > > If you think I'm a godlearner now just wait until the Mythopoet's > Manual comes out: How to create and use original and lifelike > organized religions for roleplaying games and other fiction. We'll all > be godlearners together. Ha ha, I've seen bits of it so I KNOW you're a godlearner. This is going to be THE handbook for aspiring godlearners for years to come. Loren's done a very good job with this. > > whoah, > +++++++++++++++++++++++23 > Loren Miller internet: MILLERL@wharton.upenn.edu > "Science" does not remove the terror of the gods. > -- Curtis Shenton curtiss@netcom.com internet & 4@3091 WWIVnet Currently designing a fantasy setting for WotC. If you are interested in baroque steampunk technology in a fantasy setting and want to playtest email me and I'll give you the info on joining the mailing list.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA16252; Mon, 2 Aug 93 10:50:00 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA02458; Mon, 2 Aug 93 11:48:12 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 2 Aug 93 11:48:20 EDT From: "Loren J. Miller" To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: more rumors...... Date: 02 Aug 1993 11:49:45 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <62AD74507E8@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> > Loren is a God Learner! > --Anthony If you think I'm a godlearner now just wait until the Mythopoet's Manual comes out: How to create and use original and lifelike organized religions for roleplaying games and other fiction. We'll all be godlearners together. whoah, +++++++++++++++++++++++23 Loren Miller internet: MILLERL@wharton.upenn.edu "Science" does not remove the terror of the gods.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA25682; Mon, 2 Aug 93 14:10:33 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA10665; Mon, 2 Aug 93 15:09:51 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 2 Aug 93 15:10:03 EDT From: Carl Fink To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Rumors Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1993 15:09:30 -0400 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <62E342B13C1@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Burton writes: B>While rumors are flying, any rumor when the next draft will be let out? :) When we hear something definite. Oliver does a tremendous amount of work making these drafts, you know. We don't want to make him do all that work to find that it's unnecessary. --Carl  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA06248; Mon, 2 Aug 93 17:56:46 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA18298; Mon, 2 Aug 93 18:55:00 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 2 Aug 93 18:54:56 EDT From: Tim Posney To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Rumors Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1993 08:54:30 +1000 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <631F43A151A@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Just supposing AH decides to shelve RQIV and the renaissance of Runequest turns into a still birth (sorry I could not resist) why not publish the RQIV rules as a fanzine type thing. I am currently working on an integrated set of rules (i.e. rqiv draft merged with rq3 rules where appropriate) for my own use. Assuming we can get AH to allow it (or pay them some sort of royalty) I would be prepared to publish this on a non-profit basis. And to those who ask, no I'm sorry I can't distribute this to anyone since it contains copyright material. At the moment it is just for my own use. I am also working of a great big book of cults, to include Cults of Prax, Cults of Terror,net cults, published stuff from wyrms footnotes etc. Again if I someone can get chaosium or AH approval this could be published as a fanzine thing, or they could publish it themselves. regards tim  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA23595; Tue, 3 Aug 93 08:33:03 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA05973; Tue, 3 Aug 93 09:32:04 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 3 Aug 93 9:32:16 EDT From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RE: Running Skill and Sprinting Date: Tue, 03 Aug 93 04:46:39 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <64093263D59@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> JOVANOVIC@CUCCFA.CCC.COLUMBIA.EDU writes: > Another option might be to simply say that you can double your movement > rate in noncombat conditions. In rough terrain, with people fighting all > around you, hitting top sprint speed would probably be a bit rough. That didn't really deal with the issue of what the Running skill was used for. And as far as it went, I've seen combat situations were some of the participants were approaching the scene, not under fire, and essentially, just interested in going from A to B. ------------------------------ shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) or qed!shadow The QED BBS -- (310)420-9327  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA29259; Wed, 11 Aug 93 09:50:17 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA00705; Wed, 11 Aug 93 10:48:54 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 11 Aug 93 10:49:43 EDT From: "Loren Miller" To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: We're alive? Date: 11 Aug 93 10:48:35 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <701E0FE6BFB@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Did that invasion of exploding gorp let up? Are we alive again? -- +++++++++++++++++++++++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 AA29797; Wed, 11 Aug 93 10:03:32 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01313; Wed, 11 Aug 93 11:02:56 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 11 Aug 93 11:02:57 EDT From: Anthony Ragan To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: (COPY) We're alive? Date: Wed, 11 Aug 93 07:56 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <7021CDB7F6E@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Did that invasion of exploding gorp let up? Are we alive again? -- +++++++++++++++++++++++23 Loren Miller LOREN@wmkt.wharton.upenn.edu Into the flood again, same old trip it was back when {Anthony here} What gorp? That was my Jello casserole you just sunspeared! :) Does Ken's announcement on the Daily mean that AH no longer likes roleplay games? Seems to me that, without an RQ4, the RQ Renaissance won't get very far......  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA29771; Wed, 11 Aug 93 10:02:59 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01300; Wed, 11 Aug 93 11:02:22 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 11 Aug 93 11:02:25 EDT From: pvanheus@cs.uct.ac.za (Peter van Heusden) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Life + Glorantha Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1993 17:02:02 +0200 (SAT) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <7021AB6284A@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > > Did that invasion of exploding gorp let up? Are we alive again? I'm alive. Don't know about the RQ4 project. Now, I just recently took time to look through the RQ3 Gloranthan book, and what a mess it was, what with apologists and editors having a field day. Now, everyone says RQ4 is going to have Glorantha as a primary world, so ok, how should the intro be run? RQII really didn't do it for me... that gloop of timeline and abbreviated history, which largely made rereference to facts not in evidence, that utter garbage of a map, REALLY put me of Glorantha, and RQII. So, where and how should Glorantha be introduced and detailed in RQ4? Peter ******************************************************************************* Peter van Heusden One man one newsfeed CS3, UCT, Cape Town, RSA "but I love the setting. and the hippies pvanheus@cs.uct.ac.za will be back in the fall" Red_Guest on MediaMOO  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA09483; Wed, 11 Aug 93 13:23:07 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA09429; Wed, 11 Aug 93 14:22:29 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 11 Aug 93 14:22:30 EDT From: curtiss@netcom.com (Curtis Shenton) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: (COPY) We're alive? Date: Wed, 11 Aug 93 11:22:52 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <70570A15283@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > > Actually, I think that the RQ Rules Companion might provide an even > better alternative to updating the rules wholesale, since it lets people > use their RQ3 scenarii if they want without the hassle of changing every > character's fatigue and skills over to the new rules, unless they want > to. That wasn't very clear was it? Blame it on the new ergonomic keyboard > I'm trying out. Anyway, I think that the RQ Rules Companion is *a good thing* > in fact a better thing than RQ4 would be. I'll be sending in my version > of RQ Lite before too long. > > -- Loren > Actually I still think we need a brand new rules set rather than just an add on companion of optional rules. We need to appeal to new gamers, not just RQ fanatics. It's going to be hard to sell new gamers on RQIII+companion, "All you need for RQ is this rules set, and since no one likes these rules you'll also want to buy this companion set of optional rules and stuff. " -- Curtis Shenton curtiss@netcom.com internet & 4@3091 WWIVnet Currently designing a fantasy setting for WotC. If you are interested in baroque steampunk technology in a fantasy setting and want to playtest email me and I'll give you the info on joining the mailing list.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA07632; Wed, 11 Aug 93 12:36:56 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA07722; Wed, 11 Aug 93 13:36:16 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 11 Aug 93 13:36:21 EDT From: "Loren J. Miller" To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: (COPY) We're alive? Date: 11 Aug 1993 13:37:49 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <704ABAE226C@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Actually, I think that the RQ Rules Companion might provide an even better alternative to updating the rules wholesale, since it lets people use their RQ3 scenarii if they want without the hassle of changing every character's fatigue and skills over to the new rules, unless they want to. That wasn't very clear was it? Blame it on the new ergonomic keyboard I'm trying out. Anyway, I think that the RQ Rules Companion is *a good thing* in fact a better thing than RQ4 would be. I'll be sending in my version of RQ Lite before too long. -- Loren  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA10761; Wed, 11 Aug 93 13:49:13 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA10226; Wed, 11 Aug 93 14:48:33 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 11 Aug 93 14:48:39 EDT From: Anthony Ragan To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: (COPY) Re: (COPY) We're alive? Date: Wed, 11 Aug 93 11:45 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <705DFC84CFF@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Anyway, I think that the RQ Rules Companion is *a good thing* in fact a better thing than RQ4 would be. I'll be sending in my version of RQ Lite before too long. -- Loren {Anthony here.....} I dunno, Loren. I can't see attracting too many new gamers by saying that they need to buy a cruddy base set of rules and *then* buy this neato companion book so they can play the game the way it's really played. (Of course, GDW may be doing just that with DJ.....:) IMHO, a fourth edition is essential to a real RQ Renaissance. Something simple and elegant. It needn't be much more complex than Call of Cthulhu 5th. --Anthony 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 AA02230; Thu, 12 Aug 93 02:28:01 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA26262; Thu, 12 Aug 93 03:27:15 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 12 Aug 93 3:27:27 EDT From: davidc@cs.uwa.edu.au (David Cake) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Rules Companion? Date: Thu, 12 Aug 93 15:25:01 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <712856161F8@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> If RQ4 is to be a companion rather than a full second edition, what does this mean about the rules? Most importantly, it means that the amount of change to existing stats should definately be minimised, so that people who do not have it can still play. Things that are additions to the game system rather than changes are obviously things that are fine to add. Into this category come Combat Special Options, New Skills that don't supersed old ones, the character creation system, and a few other things. These things go against the seemingly very popular RQ Lite movement, but hey, I like 'em all. It is probably fine to include changes to the core rules that change gameplay significantly, but that don't change characteristics. This makes RQ4 into a hefty change to the rules - we get new combat actions rules, changes to damage and healing, Easy/Medium/Hard skills. and then there are rules changes that will require changes to existing characters, but only small number of them - this includes some of the new skills, but mostly means Magic, shamanism and sorcery. Then there are changes which change a few things on each character - basically maneouver, and Spirit Combat. I like these as well (especially Spirit Combat) but they might be problematic, as the decision will have to be made as to wether new supplements will support these changes. Lastly, comes major changes which change the characteristics of everything, in several places. The only thing that I can think of is the new damage bonus/ armour system. It is unreasonable to suggest a new system if new supplements wil not support it, it is impossible to make it the standard system if it is only in a supplement, not a new edition of the rules, and it is very ugly to give two versions of statistics. SO the question of the 'status' of the new version makes quite a bit of difference. Can we still make the RQ4 changes to the magic system if they will be unsupported? Can we produce a 'magic companion' and from then on expect people to have it? (plausible, FASA expect you to have their Grimoire supplement, for example). What changes can we have in the new format? Cheers Dave Cake  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA05571; Thu, 12 Aug 93 07:32:44 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA03304; Thu, 12 Aug 93 08:32:01 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 12 Aug 93 8:32:10 EDT From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Re: (COPY) We're alive? Date: Thu, 12 Aug 93 03:53:24 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <7179A4761DB@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> "Loren J. Miller" writes: > Actually, I think that the RQ Rules Companion might provide an even > better alternative to updating the rules wholesale, since it lets people > use their RQ3 scenarii if they want without the hassle of changing every > character's fatigue and skills over to the new rules, unless they want > to. That wasn't very clear was it? Blame it on the new ergonomic keyboard > I'm trying out. Anyway, I think that the RQ Rules Companion is *a good thing* > in fact a better thing than RQ4 would be. I'll be sending in my version > of RQ Lite before too long. > I can see it. Among other things, it will let people pick and choose between chunks of new mechanics without sort of sticking them with an "eat it or leave it" situation. I still think that RQ4 would have been viable, but even getting the new previous experience, experience and spirit rules out would be a good contribution to the game, not to mention the simplified fatigue rules. I'm happy to have that stuff even as RQ3 houserules; the previous experience and fatigue patch two of the biggest RQ3 holes by themselves, and if we can get a cleaned up sorcery that doesn't overswing in the other direction, that'll patch the third. ------------------------------ shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) or qed!shadow The QED BBS -- (310)420-9327  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA05577; Thu, 12 Aug 93 07:32:48 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA03306; Thu, 12 Aug 93 08:32:10 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 12 Aug 93 8:32:13 EDT From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Re: (COPY) We're alive? Date: Thu, 12 Aug 93 03:57:56 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <7179A502A96@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> curtiss@netcom.netcom.com (Curtis Shenton) writes: > Actually I still think we need a brand new rules set rather than just an > add on companion of optional rules. We need to appeal to new gamers, not > just RQ fanatics. It's going to be hard to sell new gamers on > RQIII+companion, "All you need for RQ is this rules set, and since no > one likes these rules you'll also want to buy this companion set of > optional rules and stuff. " > I dunno, Curtis: it's worked for various other people's products over the years. The biggest problem I see is that RQ is still too pricey, even by modern standards. Making people by the pricey rules AND an additional booklet may be too much. I'm not sure RQ4 would have necessarily gotten more RQ players than this anyhow; I suspect that in all honesty, it's too late in the day to win back many of the people who've gone to other systems. Just properly supporting the game instead of letting it stagnate will do more for it than anything else, at least if the situation with the Hero system is a good comparison. The biggest problem with RQIII, for all my bitches with the rules, was that nothing came out for it. This didn't matter much to me, but it did to some people. Most of the stuff before the newer Gloranthan material was really substandard. While I wish that someone would do support material for it of some quality outside a Gloranthan setting, I think good Gloranthan material is a better draw for the game than the cruddy non-Gloranthan material that was coming out before. Not, mind you, that on a certain level I'm not a bit unhappy with the backing away from RQIV; if nothing else, if it didn't change too much from the current approach, it would have been useful to ME. But that's a basically selfish motivation. Wayne. ------------------------------ shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) or qed!shadow The QED BBS -- (310)420-9327  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA05583; Thu, 12 Aug 93 07:32:53 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA03310; Thu, 12 Aug 93 08:32:13 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 12 Aug 93 8:32:17 EDT From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Re: We're alive? Date: Thu, 12 Aug 93 04:06:33 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <7179A573990@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) writes: > > One thing I've realized from this mailing list is not only does > no-one seem to play the standard RQIII rules, but there doesn't > seem to be very much of a consensus as to what people don't like, > outside of a general dislike of the fatigue rules: some people > even like the sorcery rules (bizarre!). A collection of optional > rules might be a fairly useful way of collecting the best of the > house rules that the many players use. I'm not advocating that > RQIV be abandoned, but I think it needs a longer gestation period, Kind of the reason I'm somewhat behind Loren on this. I'd rather get SOMETHING out than spend the next two years determining what we even want to do. (By the way, if I was the reference to liking the sorcery rules...not really, I just don't consider the current ones an altogether acceptable fix). Has anyone actually heard anything OFFICIAL on the status of the project, by the way? I haven't seen any mail in two weeks, and get the feeling I've missed something. Wayne ------------------------------ shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) or qed!shadow The QED BBS -- (310)420-9327  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA05589; Thu, 12 Aug 93 07:32:56 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA03313; Thu, 12 Aug 93 08:32:17 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 12 Aug 93 8:32:21 EDT From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Rules Companion? Date: Thu, 12 Aug 93 04:11:31 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <7179B166C36@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> davidc@cs.uwa.edu.au (David Cake) writes: > Things that are additions to the game system rather than changes > are obviously things that are fine to add. Into this category come Combat > Special Options, New Skills that don't supersed old ones, the character > creation system, and a few other things. > These things go against the seemingly very popular RQ Lite > movement, but hey, I like 'em all. Me too. The character creation system in particular was what got me into this project. The excessive randomness of RQIII was probably the SINGLE most irking feature about it to me and the people I play with. > It is probably fine to include changes to the core rules that change > gameplay significantly, but that don't change characteristics. This makes > RQ4 into a hefty change to the rules - we get new combat actions rules, > changes to damage and healing, Easy/Medium/Hard skills. Though I think we still need to officially address the issue of death by locational damage. A lot of people have been treating triple damage to a critical location (head, chest, abdomen) as an instant kill, but I think it ought to be formalized. > and then there are rules changes that will require changes to > existing characters, but only small number of them - this includes some > of the new skills, but mostly means Magic, shamanism and sorcery. Which means, among other things that the finished work on the basic sorcery modification needs to be made. Even just going to the percentage limited spells rather than free intelligence would help, as it makes it a lot harder to generate the huge manipulations that used to be possible. I realize I'm not in the majority in wanting something a bit more reasonable in terms of ritual duration and (particularly) range extension, but under the current rules, it's pretty unlikely that mages will be travelling around with constant high Intensity, long Duration spells on them, even if we went back to the old system other than using skill as the limiter; especially if the old Intensity etc foci are punted and the new skill increasers are used. > Then there are changes which change a few things on each character - > basically maneouver, and Spirit Combat. I like these as well (especially > Spirit Combat) but they might be problematic, as the decision will have to > be made as to wether new supplements will support these changes. Though I'd tend to fight for it; it's fairly revolutionary as far as RQ goes, but I think it was a good progression. > Lastly, comes major changes which change the characteristics of > everything, in several places. The only thing that I can think of is the > new damage bonus/ armour system. It is unreasonable to suggest a new system > if new supplements wil not support it, it is impossible to make it the > standard system if it is only in a supplement, not a new edition of the > rules, and it is very ugly to give two versions of statistics. I'm not sure the new version works right anyway; it seems to miss the point of why some weapons had base adds in the first place, and really looks to me like it might break as much as it fixes. > SO the question of the 'status' of the new version makes quite a > bit of difference. Can we still make the RQ4 changes to the magic system if > they will be unsupported? Can we produce a 'magic companion' and from then > on expect people to have it? (plausible, FASA expect you to have their > Grimoire supplement, for example). > What changes can we have in the new format? All important questions that I'd like to hear answered. > ------------------------------ shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) or qed!shadow The QED BBS -- (310)420-9327  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA25376; Wed, 11 Aug 93 20:05:42 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA20863; Wed, 11 Aug 93 21:05:00 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 11 Aug 93 21:05:07 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: We're alive? Date: Thu, 12 Aug 93 11:04:38 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <70C26A13ACC@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > > Did that invasion of exploding gorp let up? Are we alive again? Yep, but how do I get these bloody marks off my hand? (Please, no more refs to River of Cradles: if that's the RQ Renaissance, I'll stay in the Dark Ages thanks!) As for the Companion doing more harm than good, I don't think lots of rules supplements have harmed Vampire, GURPS, AD&D, Rollmaster etc. Most of the more successful games seem to have lots of rules packs. In fact only Hero seems to be an exception, but I think that's because the designers don't accept that their base rules aren't universally applicable. One thing I've realized from this mailing list is not only does no-one seem to play the standard RQIII rules, but there doesn't seem to be very much of a consensus as to what people don't like, outside of a general dislike of the fatigue rules: some people even like the sorcery rules (bizarre!). A collection of optional rules might be a fairly useful way of collecting the best of the house rules that the many players use. I'm not advocating that RQIV be abandoned, but I think it needs a longer gestation period, and it may need more optional rules than RQIII had or the house rules will start spawning again. Of course, if and when the latest draft returns from AH I may change my mind. > +++++++++++++++++++++++23 > Loren Miller LOREN@wmkt.wharton.upenn.edu > Into the flood again, same old trip it was back when Graeme Lindsell a.k.a gal502@huxley.anu.edu.au  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA09474; Fri, 13 Aug 93 00:11:44 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA03494; Fri, 13 Aug 93 01:11:06 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 13 Aug 93 1:11:11 EDT From: Carl Fink To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Re: We're alive? Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1993 01:10:43 -0400 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <72840D9003C@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Graeme Lindsell writes in part: G>> >> Has anyone actually heard anything OFFICIAL on the status of the project, >> by the way? I haven't seen any mail in two weeks, and get the feeling >> I've missed something. >> G> All I saw was Ken's letter: I can't recall anything from Oliver or Carl >recently. It's still very much up in the air. When something definite is decided, I promise it'll be announced.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA10053; Fri, 13 Aug 93 00:40:30 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA03816; Fri, 13 Aug 93 01:39:55 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 13 Aug 93 1:39:57 EDT From: Carl Fink To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Re: We're alive? Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1993 01:39:34 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <728BBF65BAF@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Graeme writes: > > One question has been puzzling me: where does Avalon Hill think it's > going with RQ? What type of market niche does it want RQ to occupy? > > I suppose thats two questions actually. :-) > > Graeme > > That's what's up in the air. -- "Ignorant?! Ha! I don't even know the meaning of the word!" "Fight-Man", Evan Dorkin Carl Fink carlf@panix.com  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA13965; Fri, 13 Aug 93 06:00:48 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA06715; Fri, 13 Aug 93 06:58:18 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 13 Aug 93 7:00:14 EDT From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Re: Rules Companion? Date: Fri, 13 Aug 93 03:40:23 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <72E0B23187F@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) writes: > Here's another vote for the new character creation rules: if a rules > companion includes just one new character creation system it'd be worth > buying. I think it has to have new fatigue rules as well, but I don't > see anything else as absolutely necessary. Well...I'd say SOME kind of patch on sorcery would be a Really Good Idea. And the Easy/Medium/Hard thing would be nice. Past that... > > > extension, but under the current rules, it's pretty unlikely that mages > > will be travelling around with constant high Intensity, long Duration > > spells on them, > > In fact none of them will if we use the current RQIV sorcery draft, > successfully making sorcerers as dull as possible. > I'm not sure what you mean by "Dull" in this context. My bitch with the current draft is that the ritual Duration/Range extension might as well not be there, since the POW based version is still too good, and the time based version is useless. > > I seem to be alone in loathing the new spirit combat rules: I think they > are very complex and add nothing to the enjoyment of the game. They are > valid as optional rules though. I don't find them any more complex than regular combat, and think they make a nice distinction between someone who is skilled in fighting spirits and someone who just has a high POW. But I'll give you that they're a low priority item. > I liked the idea of the new system, but I don't think that it went far > enough. If there is going to be something that changes all the stats then > it could just as well be completely different ie weapon damage based on > str+size, hit points = con + siz and death at 0 HP rather than HP = > (con + siz)/2 and death at negative HP. I just generally thought it was a mess, personally. While I understand some of the problems with the current version, I didn't like a number of features about it, including what seemed like some irrational values for some weapons, loss of distinction between armor types, and a reduction in the already low chance of actually ever killing someone in the game. > I wouldn't stay up late to hear the answers: KR only seemed to float > the idea a few days ago. > Which, like I said, I never even saw. I LOVE getting internet stuff through a BBS...it's SO much fun... Wayne ------------------------------ shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) or qed!shadow The QED BBS -- (310)420-9327  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA03617; Thu, 12 Aug 93 19:36:14 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA29704; Thu, 12 Aug 93 20:35:20 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 12 Aug 93 20:35:39 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Re: We're alive? Date: Fri, 13 Aug 93 10:34:58 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <723A86C40CB@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > > gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) writes: > > outside of a general dislike of the fatigue rules: some people > > even like the sorcery rules (bizarre!). A collection of optional > > Kind of the reason I'm somewhat behind Loren on this. I'd rather get > SOMETHING out than spend the next two years determining what we even want > to do. (By the way, if I was the reference to liking the sorcery > rules...not really, I just don't consider the current ones an altogether > acceptable fix). No, it wasn't you: there was a poster a couple of months ago who liked the current RQIII rules just fine. (Strange but True Tales of FRP!!) I'm no fan of the RQIV Draft 2.0 sorcery rules either: I (like many other people I believe) prefer Pauls presence/twin concept. This won't be in any companion though, since you need to re-write the character sheet. This leads to an interesting point (at least to me): the original requirement for RQIV was that you wouldn't have to change the published character sheets, so that published adventures could still be used; if this condition is met, then people could still play the scenarios using the RQIII rules, they don't need RQIV. It doesn't matter whether AH publish those rules as a Rules Companion or as RQIV: using those rules is entirely optional. A Companion would be cheaper, since it wouldn't need to be as big, but RQIV would probably likely to attract more new players, just because it looks new. My $6.37 (2 cents corrected for inflation): if it doesn't need to change the character sheets/published scenarios, I'd publish it as a Companion. If it does need to, and many of the rules this list has favoured need to, then I think it is worth producing it as RQIV, and republishing the best of the RQIII scenario packs. Chaosium has repackaged many of its early CoC adventures for later editions without much trouble. The publication of RQIV might be the time to break out of the Prax ghetto, too. All of this IMHO, of course. > > Has anyone actually heard anything OFFICIAL on the status of the project, > by the way? I haven't seen any mail in two weeks, and get the feeling > I've missed something. > All I saw was Ken's letter: I can't recall anything from Oliver or Carl recently. > Wayne Graeme Lindsell a.k.a gal502@huxley.anu.edu.au  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA05564; Thu, 12 Aug 93 20:58:53 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA00901; Thu, 12 Aug 93 21:58:14 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 12 Aug 93 21:58:17 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Rules Companion? Date: Fri, 13 Aug 93 11:15:27 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <7250AD92D95@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > > davidc@cs.uwa.edu.au (David Cake) writes: > > are obviously things that are fine to add. Into this category come Combat > > Special Options, New Skills that don't supersed old ones, the character > > creation system, and a few other things. [Wayne:] > Me too. The character creation system in particular was what got me into > this project. The excessive randomness of RQIII was probably the SINGLE > most irking feature about it to me and the people I play with. > Here's another vote for the new character creation rules: if a rules companion includes just one new character creation system it'd be worth buying. I think it has to have new fatigue rules as well, but I don't see anything else as absolutely necessary. > > It is probably fine to include changes to the core rules that change > > gameplay significantly, but that don't change characteristics. This makes > > RQ4 into a hefty change to the rules - we get new combat actions rules, > > changes to damage and healing, Easy/Medium/Hard skills. These are all fine as optional rules, since most GM's can take them or leave them without changing how the scenarios play. > > of the new skills, but mostly means Magic, shamanism and sorcery. > > Which means, among other things that the finished work on the basic > sorcery modification needs to be made. Even just going to the percentage [some deleted] > extension, but under the current rules, it's pretty unlikely that mages > will be travelling around with constant high Intensity, long Duration > spells on them, In fact none of them will if we use the current RQIV sorcery draft, successfully making sorcerers as dull as possible. > > Then there are changes which change a few things on each character - > > basically maneouver, and Spirit Combat. I like these as well (especially > > Spirit Combat) but they might be problematic, as the decision will have to > > be made as to wether new supplements will support these changes. > I seem to be alone in loathing the new spirit combat rules: I think they are very complex and add nothing to the enjoyment of the game. They are valid as optional rules though. > > Lastly, comes major changes which change the characteristics of > > everything, in several places. The only thing that I can think of is the > > new damage bonus/ armour system. It is unreasonable to suggest a new system > > I'm not sure the new version works right anyway; it seems to miss the > point of why some weapons had base adds in the first place, and really > looks to me like it might break as much as it fixes. I liked the idea of the new system, but I don't think that it went far enough. If there is going to be something that changes all the stats then it could just as well be completely different ie weapon damage based on str+size, hit points = con + siz and death at 0 HP rather than HP = (con + siz)/2 and death at negative HP. > > > SO the question of the 'status' of the new version makes quite a > > bit of difference. Can we still make the RQ4 changes to the magic system if > > they will be unsupported? Can we produce a 'magic companion' and from then > > on expect people to have it? (plausible, FASA expect you to have their > > Grimoire supplement, for example). > > What changes can we have in the new format? It depends on the kind of changes: the new effects of Befuddle won't affect many published scenarios, but the new sorcery rules would probably affect all new publications. Annual re-usable rune magic for initiates (one of my optional rules proposals) wouldn't change the character sheets much but would change the effectiveness of parties quite a lot. > All important questions that I'd like to hear answered. I wouldn't stay up late to hear the answers: KR only seemed to float the idea a few days ago. > shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) or qed!shadow > The QED BBS -- (310)420-9327 Graeme Lindsell a.k.a gal502@huxley.anu.edu.au  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA09958; Fri, 13 Aug 93 00:34:16 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA03798; Fri, 13 Aug 93 01:33:41 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 13 Aug 93 1:33:45 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Re: We're alive? Date: Fri, 13 Aug 93 15:33:24 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <728A1E9504B@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Carl writes: > It's still very much up in the air. When something definite is > decided, I promise it'll be announced. > > Much appreciated. One question has been puzzling me: where does Avalon Hill think it's going with RQ? What type of market niche does it want RQ to occupy? I suppose thats two questions actually. :-) Graeme  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA20015; Sat, 14 Aug 93 03:04:15 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA14863; Sat, 14 Aug 93 04:03:12 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 14 Aug 93 4:03:41 EDT From: The Stars Are Right To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Re: We're alive? Date: Sat, 14 Aug 93 10:02:26 GMT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <74320F52E4B@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Re: rules companion: I would like to see the new combat options as optionals. A new character genera tion system , the draft version is good as a starting point but is too slow. Eas y/medium/hard skills would be nice too. And of course we need some variety on sp irit combat, maybe a simpler version of the draft spirit combat. We also need to make the healing less effective and dying with one stroke possible even without a critical hit as discussed earlier on this mailing list. -- hannu  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA17328; Sun, 15 Aug 93 05:05:42 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA16368; Sun, 15 Aug 93 06:05:03 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 15 Aug 93 6:05:05 EDT From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Re: Re: We're alive? Date: Sun, 15 Aug 93 02:39:58 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <75D27EC0A58@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> The Stars Are Right writes: > Re: rules companion: > > I would like to see the new combat options as optionals. A new character > genera > tion system , the draft version is good as a starting point but is too slow. Too slow? Other than the basic calculations necessary to do modifiers, I can put together a character with that stuff in something like five minutes. How much faster can you want? ------------------------------ shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) or qed!shadow The QED BBS -- (310)420-9327  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA06625; Sun, 15 Aug 93 20:09:34 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA28832; Sun, 15 Aug 93 21:08:29 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 15 Aug 93 21:08:53 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Re: Rules Companion? Date: Mon, 16 Aug 93 11:07:59 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <76C37ED65FC@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > > gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) writes: Wayne writes: > Well...I'd say SOME kind of patch on sorcery would be a Really Good Idea. > And the Easy/Medium/Hard thing would be nice. Past that... > I'm more interested in a completely re-written sorcery system than a patch, ie something like Paul's presence system. Your point is well taken though: if the Companion is meant to provide patches to broken rules without needing to change the character sheet, then sorcery is an obvious candidate for fixing. The Easy/Medium/Hard is interesting, but I don't see it as essential, and I'm worried about the way it's implemented: almost all of the cults judge progression by skill level, and cults with Easy cult skills will suddenly become much easier to advance in. > > > > > extension, but under the current rules, it's pretty unlikely that mages > > > will be travelling around with constant high Intensity, long Duration > > > spells on them, > > > > In fact none of them will if we use the current RQIV sorcery draft, > > successfully making sorcerers as dull as possible. > > > > I'm not sure what you mean by "Dull" in this context. My bitch with the > current draft is that the ritual Duration/Range extension might as well > not be there, since the POW based version is still too good, and the time > based version is useless. I think both versions are useless: I can't see a sorcerer ever blowing power to get a temporary spell. This is why I called it dull: the interesting thing about RQII sorcerers was the long duration spells (OK, the grossly overpowered thing as well). The draft RQIV sorcerers just seem to have a different variety of spirit magic. There's nothing unique about them. > > I just generally thought it was a mess, personally. While I understand > some of the problems with the current version, I didn't like a number of > features about it, including what seemed like some irrational values for > some weapons, loss of distinction between armor types, and a reduction in > the already low chance of actually ever killing someone in the game. Yes, but I think that the low death rate is more due to the new death at neagtive max HP rule and the prevalence of Heal spells, rather than the lethality of the weapons. I think Heal is the real culprit: there are very few wounds that kill you instantly in reality. I think most combat fatalities are the result of shock. > > > I wouldn't stay up late to hear the answers: KR only seemed to float > > the idea a few days ago. > > > > Which, like I said, I never even saw. I LOVE getting internet stuff > through a BBS...it's SO much fun... > Really? I saw it three times. > Wayne > > > ------------------------------ > shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) or qed!shadow > The QED BBS -- (310)420-9327 > Graeme Lindsell a.k.a gal502@huxley.anu.edu.au  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA09769; Mon, 16 Aug 93 14:23:25 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA26709; Mon, 16 Aug 93 15:22:18 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 16 Aug 93 15:22:40 EDT From: jjm@zycor.lgc.com (johnjmedway) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: character generation Date: Mon, 16 Aug 93 14:21:31 CDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <77E74212759@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >> From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) >> Date: Sun, 15 Aug 93 02:39:58 PDT >> >> The Stars Are Right writes: >> > I would like to see the new combat options as optionals. A new character >> > genera >> > tion system , the draft version is good as a starting point but is too slow. >> >> Too slow? Other than the basic calculations necessary to do modifiers, I >> can put together a character with that stuff in something like five >> minutes. How much faster can you want? But what level of detail or experience does the character have? I think that it's WAY too slow, and have been saying that all along. I could probably crank some out _fairly_ quickly, but my players have taken about 2 hours or more _each_ for their first attempts with this system. I'll admit we used some time talking a few things over while building the characters, but the organization, and the package designs are a bit more tortured than they need be. ( BTW: all characters 60 - 85 points, with 3-4 templates used ). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 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 AA02421; Fri, 20 Aug 93 02:30:50 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA12671; Fri, 20 Aug 93 03:30:01 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 20 Aug 93 3:30:11 EDT From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Rules Companion? Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1993 23:09:12 MEZ Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <7D297E34B49@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> In <76C37ED65FC@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu>, Graeme Lindsell writes: > Wayne writes: >> Well...I'd say SOME kind of patch on sorcery would be a Really Good Idea. >> And the Easy/Medium/Hard thing would be nice. Past that... > I'm more interested in a completely re-written sorcery system than a > patch, ie something like Paul's presence system. Your point is well > taken though: if the Companion is meant to provide patches to broken > rules without needing to change the character sheet, then sorcery > is an obvious candidate for fixing. Not even the PRE-system is a complete rewrite; it keeps most of the spells we know from the current version and thus keeps up compatibility. > The Easy/Medium/Hard is interesting, but I don't see it as essential, > and I'm worried about the way it's implemented: almost all of the > cults judge progression by skill level, and cults with Easy cult > skills will suddenly become much easier to advance in. I have to disagree: Without the difficulty system, there is no need for a point system, and that's no need for the templates as offered. Most of the sense the current draft makes would be cancelled. >>>> extension, but under the current rules, it's pretty unlikely that mages >>>> will be travelling around with constant high Intensity, long Duration >>>> spells on them, >>> In fact none of them will if we use the current RQIV sorcery draft, >>> successfully making sorcerers as dull as possible. >> I'm not sure what you mean by "Dull" in this context. My bitch with the >> current draft is that the ritual Duration/Range extension might as well >> not be there, since the POW based version is still too good, and the time >> based version is useless. > I think both versions are useless: I can't see a sorcerer ever blowing > power to get a temporary spell. This is why I called it dull: the interesting > thing about RQII sorcerers was the long duration spells (OK, the grossly ^^ Nice typo. RQ2 (why the roman numerals?) did know long-time spells; anything stacked with Extension 3 would last a week. For runetypes with reusable Extension no problem, just power yourself up before the adventure, and have a quasi-permanent Bladesharp 4, protection 4 (or was 6 the limit?), etc. What's the difference between a week or a year in adventuring? > overpowered thing as well). The draft RQIV sorcerers just seem to have a > different variety of spirit magic. There's nothing unique about them. And a less reliable, to top it. Compare protection with damage resistance, and you'll find that a Protection 3 will cancel out more damage from a swordfighter with 1D4 damage bonus than a 3-point Damage Resistance, and probably (I didn't calculate that) more than a 6-point Damage Resistance. One way I have come up with to handle long- or medium-time Duration is to make the use of a progressive table (not necessarily the current 2^X table) dependent on ritual casting, i.e. long-time casting. My idea was to use the ceremony-time-to-skill table with casting time one step (one D6 in the table) per extra point of Duration. Opinions? >> I just generally thought it was a mess, personally. While I understand >> some of the problems with the current version, I didn't like a number of >> features about it, including what seemed like some irrational values for >> some weapons, loss of distinction between armor types, and a reduction in >> the already low chance of actually ever killing someone in the game. > Yes, but I think that the low death rate is more due to the new > death at neagtive max HP rule and the prevalence of Heal spells, rather > than the lethality of the weapons. I think Heal is the real culprit: > there are very few wounds that kill you instantly in reality. I think > most combat fatalities are the result of shock. Lethality is always a problem. I'd like to see a system that allows wounds which cannot be healed at once, maybe only stilled - something like False Healing in Troll Gods. Only a low percentage actually died within five minutes from a lethal blow, other than having their throats slit. Healing magic and First Aid skill ought to be able to stop immediate death, but there are enough examples of people slowly dying from a wound, allowing them even to act heroically in the meantime - at least in fiction. To really heal a lethal wound, I'd expect some ritual healing magic as so nicely depicted in the Conan movie. This would also go nicely with Greg Staffords statement that distribution of healing magic is about ten times overrated among RQ-PCs, or in RQ in general. I like the sorcerous Treat Wounds, by the way: no immediate effect except stopping the bleeding. If one plays the variant as used by the German translation (I think taken from the RQ3 Errata), only apprentices or higher sorcerous ranks could do more than that because noone else may know Duration, which has to be one hour per point to be healed. Finally a note about the future of this list: I don't know the copyright situation for the draft and our thoughts upon it, but I advocate to continue our discussions to a point of producing new drafts. Some day there will be the need for a new edition of RQ, if it survives, and whosoever will hold the rights by then will have to take an existing, playtested version into account. So keep on producing ideas and presenting them here. -- 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 AA05459; Tue, 17 Aug 93 01:57:19 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA11978; Tue, 17 Aug 93 02:56:34 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 17 Aug 93 2:56:42 EDT From: davidc@cs.uwa.edu.au (David Cake) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: character generation Date: Tue, 17 Aug 93 14:54:49 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <78A068B3456@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > > >> From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) > >> Date: Sun, 15 Aug 93 02:39:58 PDT > >> > >> > >> Too slow? Other than the basic calculations necessary to do modifiers, I > >> can put together a character with that stuff in something like five > >> minutes. How much faster can you want? > > But what level of detail or experience does the character have? > I think that it's WAY too slow, and have been saying that all along. > I think that levels of detail is what is causing your characters to take a long time, and I don't know if there is really that much that can be done about it. I have known character creation to take hours using systems like Amber (which is the closest thing to rulesless in many ways). Detailed characters take time, and that is quite possibly insurmountable. > I could probably crank some out _fairly_ quickly, but my players have taken > about 2 hours or more _each_ for their first attempts with this system. I have been finding that it takes about 2hrs for a first attempt using quite complicated characters (including multiple templates, the optional cultural skills, and cult skills and spirit magic). I found that the second time was a lot quicker, about 1hr. It could easily have been faster except for the normal mundane problems - only one copy of the rules, only a finite amount of GM ' attention, etc. I'll admit that organisation, etc. could be a little improved, but they inevitably will in a production version. Organisation can only be improved so much (for example, acess to cult information about cult special skills and magic can be a problem - I don't see the new character creation system helping a whole lot) What I like about the system is the immense burden that it removes from the gamesmaster, by having simple templates immediately available (eg what's his Scan? Well, hes an average warrior so - is preferable to me just ad hoccing it all the time). I also like the fact that the inbuilt flexibility means that I have to spend less time fiddling the rules - Hmm,, Issaries merchant - Master trader, plus master initiate, maybe add in a little missionary if appropriate: Sword of Humakt, Master Soldier, Officer option, master initiate: Storm Khan, Master Barbarian mounted warrior, master initiate,(including the possibility of 90%sense chaos as a cult skill), and a lower level of Noble. This sort of thing is very useful, as it means that a few scribbled notes are almost entirely sufficent to define an NPC. This enables me to concentrate GM work were it matters. I like the new system! I spend more time using it and less time fighting it. > I'll admit we used some time talking a few things over while building the > characters, but the organization, and the package designs are a bit more > tortured than they need be. ( BTW: all characters 60 - 85 points, with 3-4 > templates used ). Complex characters like this will take time in any game system. I can't see there being a way of making it easier without giving you a whole lot less flexibility - and the flexibility is one of the things that I value the most. Personally, I am in favour of complicating it even more by adding a few seldom used options - like skills over 90%, buying items, etc. Just add them, mark them as optional, and let people decide if they want to use them. I would use them enough to appreciate there existence. One thing that I do find irritating is the overload of weapon skills. Some professions should have weapons as optional skills, and I do not understand why they are made compulsory. In my mind the special exception made for CA healers is pretty silly - it implies that non-CA healers are never total pacifists, which is unlikely, I'm sure that there are Xemela nuns just as pacifist as CAs. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > | 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 AA13006; Tue, 17 Aug 93 05:33:29 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA14375; Tue, 17 Aug 93 06:32:45 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 17 Aug 93 6:32:51 EDT From: Malcolm Cohen To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: character generation Date: Tue, 17 Aug 93 11:24:10 MET Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <78DA1162271@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > But what level of detail or experience does the character have? > I think that it's WAY too slow, and have been saying that all along. > > I could probably crank some out _fairly_ quickly, but my players have taken > about 2 hours or more _each_ for their first attempts with this system. But how does this compare with your RQ3 experience? My experience is that RQ3 takes almost that long for characters in the 50% skill max range, and without producing decent characters at the end. Certainly, when a new player joined my game a fortnight ago it took that long; admittedly that was using my "patched" version of RQ3 chargen, but the real time-use was in deciding what to do, changing occupations, etc. The number crunching bit only took about an extra 10 mins (and then only because I did not have my tables with me). Time used (24 y.o. character, so 9 years previous experience): - rolling characteristics, determining bonuses, rolling background, base experience + writing it up = approx 1 hour [same as RQ3] - deciding on occupation changes, working through past history, etc. = approx 30-40 minutes [maybe 5-10 mins slower than RQ3] - selecting optional skills and number crunching them = approx 20-30 minutes [RQ3 does not have these, could have chopped this by 5-10 minutes with tables] i.e. for someone who does not have the RQ3 rules memorised and fully understood (i.e. my player), we have (i) for a simple character (just rolled up, stick with rolled occupation, no interaction with historical/cultural events) - about 1 hour [This is a completely unacceptable option: my player would not have been chuffed ending up with 9 years farming!] (ii) for a minimally tailored character, about 1.5 hours. (iii) for a well-tailored charcter, about 2 hours. And in case you are thinking that it is my patched chargen system slowing this down too much, I will say that this is for a character with NO MAGIC AT ALL (my campaign has severe magic restrictions - only 25% of characters are even theoretically capable of magic use). -- ...........................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 AA26436; Tue, 17 Aug 93 11:36:02 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA29057; Tue, 17 Aug 93 12:35:11 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 17 Aug 93 12:35:21 EDT From: burt@ptltd.com (Burton Choinski) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: COMMENTS Date: Tue, 17 Aug 93 12:31:44 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <793AB951E27@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Graeme A Lindsell Notes: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- %% I'm more interested in a completely re-written sorcery system than a %% patch, ie something like Paul's presence system. Your point is well %% taken though: if the Companion is meant to provide patches to broken %% rules without needing to change the character sheet, then sorcery %% is an obvious candidate for fixing. This would be great, but if AH is wanting to maintain compatability with RQ3, I doubt it will fly. *sigh* %% The Easy/Medium/Hard is interesting, but I don't see it as essential, %% and I'm worried about the way it's implemented: almost all of the %% cults judge progression by skill level, and cults with Easy cult %% skills will suddenly become much easier to advance in. Well, I like the idea, and yes it will make some cult skills tougher. Perhaps cults know special techniques to make all their cult skills at least "medium" difficulty? %% > I'm not sure what you mean by "Dull" in this context. My bitch with the %% > current draft is that the ritual Duration/Range extension might as well %% > not be there, since the POW based version is still too good, and the time %% > based version is useless. %% %% I think both versions are useless: I can't see a sorcerer ever blowing %% power to get a temporary spell. This is why I called it dull: the %% interesting thing about RQII sorcerers was the long duration spells (OK, %% the grossly overpowered thing as well). The draft RQIV sorcerers just seem %% to have a different variety of spirit magic. There's nothing unique about %% them. Well, I think Sorcery only needs a bit of tweaking to make it useful myself. 1) Some guidelines on creating new spells...the existing list seems too limited. Sorcerers, while having to blow lots of MP for effect, have the ultimate flexibility. This should extend to a MUCH larger spell list, OR an easy way for the GM or players to make new spells. 2) Some spells need to be tweaked to make them less worthless or less gross. Tap, for one, shoul be a ritual spell in my mind. Fly shouldn't use quite so much power, IMHO. In the case of Fly, I'm using what I have always called a "pseudo-log" (don't know the real name). In this, 1 point allows for 1 intenisty, 2 points allows for 2-3 intensity; 3 points allows for 4-6 intensity (1+2+3); 4 points allows for up to 10 (1+2+3+4) and so on. So my sorcerer can afford to levitate himself with a resonable power expenditure. 3) I use a square table for duration and range, not a doubling one. So Duration 10 gets you 100x base duration, not 1024x. This, combined with the use of ceremony to increase actual duration and range (the dice rolled add to the range or duration factors before squaring) balances out the grossness of spells lasting forever. David Cake notes (on RQ4 char-gen) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- %% What I like about the system is the immense burden that it removes %% from the gamesmaster, by having simple templates immediately available (eg %% what's his Scan? Well, hes an average warrior so - is preferable to me %% just ad hoccing it all the time). I also like the fact that the inbuilt %% flexibility means that I have to spend less time fiddling the rules - Hmm,, I, and my players, like the new system. But, if AH wants compatibility, examine the following: * HUNTER (Primitive) Novice Trained Expert Master Cost 11 27 54 108 BASIC SKILLS Novice Trained Expert Master 30% 45% 60 75% 30% 45% 60 75% -- 30% 45 60% -- 30% 45 60% -- 30% 45 60% Craft -- 30% 45% 60% Craft -- 30% 45% 60% Hide 30% 45% 60% 75% Hunter Lore 30% 45% 60% 75% Listen 30% 45% 60% 75% Lore 30% 45% 60% 75% Scan 30% 45% 60% 75% Sneak 45% 60% 75% 90% Throw 30% 45% 60% 75% Tracking 30% 45% 60% 75% OPTIONAL SKILLS Novice Trained Expert Master Climb -- -- 60% 75% Jump 30% 45% 60% 75% Mimic 30% 45% 60% 75% Run 30% 45% 60% 75% Search -- 30% 45% 60% Trapping 45% 60% 75% 90% Wound Binding 30% 45% 60% 75% EQUIPMENT Cultural weapons, knife, gourds or water skins, firemaker, pack, fur and hide clothing, pelts worth 50L. Trained hunters have 100L worth of pelts. Expert hunters have 200L worth of pelts and 50m of rope. Master hunters have 400L worth of pelts, leather armor and a fine cultural weapon. I took the guidelines for converting existing templates and converted over the Primative hunter (I made some mistakes, I have to do it again, but I provided this as an idea). As a simplification, all 30% skills cost 1 background point, 45% costs 2, 60% costs 4, 75% costs 8 and 90% costs 16. (extra costs for the occupation not figured in yet). I figured that having easy vs. hard for cost modification was unneded baggage. Now, you'll notice 4 attack skills. The benefit of this system is that you can take 2 equal skills of equal level and combine them to get the next level. A player, with an expert hunter, could take 75% in sword and 75% in bow, or merge the two categories and get 90% in sword (75% costs 8, 16 points of attack = 90%). Likewise he could concentrate his craft skills. I renamed First Aid to Wound Binding 'cuz that sounds better to me for the world. This optional metheod may be used, as it keeps RQ3 categories and allows all special ones (in the Glorantha Players book) to have the same basic level. Skills of x4 and x5 will top out at x3, with the excess being put into another copy of the same skill. Comments? -- Burton  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA00931; Tue, 17 Aug 93 13:18:44 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA03127; Tue, 17 Aug 93 14:18:00 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 17 Aug 93 14:18:03 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: COMMENTS Date: Tue, 17 Aug 93 14:17:36 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <79561FC038E@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Burt asks about: 4 points allows for up to 10 (1+2+3+4) These are the 'triangular numbers'. (=#points in a triangle of n points on a side: * 1 * * + 2 * * * + 3 * * * * + 4 = 10) More another time, paul  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA28972; Tue, 17 Aug 93 12:34:10 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01370; Tue, 17 Aug 93 13:33:31 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 17 Aug 93 13:33:33 EDT From: The Stars Are Right To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: character generation Date: Tue, 17 Aug 93 19:30:42 MET Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <794A4B52B02@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> We need better AND faster char gen systems. 2 hours is WAY too high. One hour  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA29368; Tue, 17 Aug 93 12:45:53 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01879; Tue, 17 Aug 93 13:45:12 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 17 Aug 93 13:45:16 EDT From: The Stars Are Right To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: character generation Date: Tue, 17 Aug 93 19:44:24 MET Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <794D6B74CB4@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> We need better AND faster char gen systems. 2 hours is WAY too high. One hour is WAY too high. Half an hour is ok. Not all of us gamers enjoy making chartacters or have the extra time to make the characters, it is a problem for neophytes wh o should be gotten into the meat of the game: gaming, fast and also for us who h ave other concerns and can only get one evening a week for gaming if that. Yes, I love the possibilities inherent in the new char gen system and I also hate the randomness and ultimate sameness of the characters produced with the old method but to be a better game device char generation needs to be faster. -- hannu  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA00635; Wed, 18 Aug 93 07:18:17 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA28338; Wed, 18 Aug 93 08:17:31 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 18 Aug 93 8:17:40 EDT From: Mystic Musk Ox To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: RE: COMMENTS Date: Wed, 18 Aug 93 13:16 BST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <7A7612F152F@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Burton Choinski writes... > 3) I use a square table for duration and range, not a doubling one. So > Duration 10 gets you 100x base duration, not 1024x. This, combined with > the use of ceremony to increase actual duration and range (the dice rolled > add to the range or duration factors before squaring) balances out the > grossness of spells lasting forever. This I quite like. I assume that with this system, you don't bother with Free Int, since the mp cost for long duration (>1 day) spells becomes huge. (Incidentally, this would mean that lots of people, all combining mp's in some way, would be needed to cast *really* long duration spells - which somehow feels better. There is something like this in Call of Cthulhu - the caster uses his/her mp's, and anyone else knowing the spell may contribute mp's, others may only contribute 1 mp) For the use of ceremony, I take it you mean that the points obtained from the ceremony table can be divided up to row shifts on the Duration, Range etc table as the caster sees fit? Would it be worth using the squaring system for Range etc also? That has never seemed to cause the problems that Duration did, although for consistency it might be useful to always use the same system....(I haven't thought out the effects of doing so...) A (possible) tweak on Ceremony that just occurred to me: The points obtained on each die rolled must be used as a group ie all applied to Range,or Duration or whatever i.e. each die must be applied individually to one of the attributes of the spells. Thus longer Ceremonies (= more dice rolled) will give more flexibility to distribution of points to attributes, whereas shorter ones may well over or under achieve effects required. Mark Buckley...  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA11561; Wed, 18 Aug 93 12:26:56 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA10558; Wed, 18 Aug 93 13:26:01 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 18 Aug 93 13:26:17 EDT From: burt@ptltd.com (Burton Choinski) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: COMMENTS Date: Wed, 18 Aug 93 13:22:28 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <7AC8503037B@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Mark Buckley, on my comments %%> 3) I use a square table for duration and range, not a doubling one. So %%> Duration 10 gets you 100x base duration, not 1024x. This, combined with %%> the use of ceremony to increase actual duration and range (the dice rolled %%> add to the range or duration factors before squaring) balances out the %%> grossness of spells lasting forever. %% %%This I quite like. I assume that with this system, you don't bother with %%Free Int, since the mp cost for long duration (>1 day) spells becomes %%huge. Correct. INT as a limiter on spirit spells, but since the sorcery spells are more skill then just "umph" and away, I never bothered. This prevents the lack of free int from getting out of hand. %%For the use of ceremony, I take it you mean that the points obtained %%from the ceremony table can be divided up to row shifts on the Duration, %%Range etc table as the caster sees fit? Actually, you would need a ceremony session for each aspect. If you spent 89 rounds each on Range and duration, each would get 10d6 added to the value before squaring. %%Would it be worth using the squaring system for Range etc also? That has never %%seemed to cause the problems that Duration did, although for consistency it %%might be useful to always use the same system....(I haven't thought out the %%effects of doing so...) I figured the same for consistancy. If you have no other means of targeting, continent-spanning spell usage seems extreme. :) This metheod allows you to sacrifice time to gain great effect, rather then try and burn all your power. You could spend 1 round each on ceremony for range and duration and get a R-4 and D-4 (on average) effect at about 7 less points of magic. But it means that spell is fired once every 3 rounds instead of once a round. Your call. :) -- Burton  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA13120; Thu, 19 Aug 93 04:02:43 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA02948; Thu, 19 Aug 93 05:01:41 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 19 Aug 93 5:02:05 EDT From: davidc@cs.uwa.edu.au (David Cake) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: character generation Date: Thu, 19 Aug 93 16:58:53 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <7BC1E4A7C3A@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > >We need better AND faster char gen systems. 2 hours is WAY too high. One hour > is > WAY too high. Half an hour is ok. Not all of us gamers enjoy making > chartacters > or have the extra time to make the characters, it is a problem for neophytes > who > should be gotten into the meat of the game: gaming, fast and also for us who >have other concerns and can only get one evening a week for gaming if that. Yes > I love the possibilities inherent in the new char gen system and I also hate >randomness and ultimate sameness of the characters produced with the old method > but to be a better game device char generation needs to be faster. -- hannu > Well, some might argue that 1 hr is way too long - I find that people don't make up characters that often, and I like them to give a lot of thought to them. I find that the reason that the new system takes a while is that it gives you a lot of choice. If you want to make an uninteresting character, and you know exactly what you want, it is really quick - a definite boom for GMs, who are often in exactly that situation. Even moderately interesting characters can be done quickly - providing you have a good idea what you want to do. Character creation can only be so quick when you spend time on many decisions. Personally I find that this is so with just about all games - the character creation systems that take a long time (like Champions and Space Opera for example) take a long time because you have flexibilty and have to make a lot of decisions, the really easy ones (like A D&D) are easy because there are very few decisions to make. The thing to avoid is excess arithmetic and looking up things on tables, etc. I find that the templates approach is an excellent compromise. I have two suggestions. One - make sure that you learn the system, some things that appear complex (like lots of sub-templates, and increasing attributes, and cult skills) are much simpler if you know what you are doing. I mention this because the difference in time between creating first and second characters was really substantial for my players. Two - how much of your time in character creation is spent making decisions, and how much is spent actually working out skills and abilities? Realise which decisions make it take longer, and think about it beforehand. Try making a simple character ie a typical Orlanthi expert warrior, with average experience as a crafter, for example. If you are clear about what you want, I find it takes me half to a quater of an hour (providing there are no argements with the GM, and I don't have to share one set of bound rules between 8 :-)). I find that even complex characters (7 mothers priest-officials from noble houses, for example) take me only slightly longer. I add fast:-). Anyway, enough proselytising. I like the system, and I think that there should only be minor changes unless someone comes up with a system that has the same advantages (ie can be easily used for generic or highly individual characters) and is even easier to use, which doesn't seem to be happening in a hurry. I would actually like further complexity, to be used for things that I would only use for ocassional customisation of exceptional characters. Cheers Dave Cake PS Burton, I think your example of the RQ4 system adapted to RQ3 shows that it works, certainly better than the old system. But I think allowing people to add weapon skills together is asking for trouble, I would leave them as is for skills within a template (ie not allow primitive hunter to add missile attack to hand weapon attack) but maybe allow it between templates (allow sailors sword skill to add to soldier sword skill), because I fear that most players would choose to be too good at too few weapons. If I start a campaign at low level, then weapon skill is the thing that is most important to be low.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA28496; Thu, 19 Aug 93 10:38:45 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA17168; Thu, 19 Aug 93 11:37:40 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 19 Aug 93 11:37:59 EDT From: burt@ptltd.com (Burton Choinski) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Comments Date: Thu, 19 Aug 93 11:34:18 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <7C2B80F54FF@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David Cake replies... %% PS Burton, I think your example of the RQ4 system adapted to RQ3 shows that %% it works, certainly better than the old system. But I think allowing people %% to add weapon skills together is asking for trouble, I would leave them as %% is for skills within a template (ie not allow primitive hunter to add %% missile attack to hand weapon attack) but maybe allow it between templates %% (allow sailors sword skill to add to soldier sword skill), because I fear %% that most players would choose to be too good at too few weapons. If I %% start a campaign at low level, then weapon skill is the thing that is most %% important to be low. Hmm. You are right on that. I'll go with that. But when taking a new template, Adding two equal levels bumps it up to the next higher (i.e. learning 1H Sword 30% when you already have 1H Sword at 30% bumps you to 1H Sword 45%. If a skill is duplicated in a future template, and the gained skill is less, you get no benefit. If it is greater, you take the higher value. There is no adding of skills...that only applies to equal increases. This rule should make it quick and fast. The "forgetting" of easy/medium/hard skills upon generation streamlines it without really losing anything, IMHO. After all, we are talking YEARS of "off-camera" time. I suggest also that age start at 14-16 (d3+13). Each level of a template details the aging, at 1d6+3 per level. For example, Joe starts off with his raw PC at 15 years. He decides to take Initiate (level 1, 1d6+3 years), then spends some time to become an Expert Merchant (level 3, 3d6+9 years). If he makes average rolls, Joe will start the game at 41 years of age. Now, the actual age rolls could be tweaked. I based it on Master level, subtracting base age and dividing by 4. Perhaps initiate could be just 1d3 per level (since it is so lacking in skills). Perhaps it could be 1d6 for normal occupations. -- Burton  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA19908; Thu, 19 Aug 93 19:18:21 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA05697; Thu, 19 Aug 93 20:17:26 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 19 Aug 93 20:17:39 EDT From: JOVANOVIC@CUCCFA.CCC.COLUMBIA.EDU To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Character generation Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1993 20:16:44 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <7CB62100004@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Burton, I think we have something very similar to what you're talking about in the works for the next generation of character generation . It was specifically meant to speed up the calculations for characters that take more than one profession as part of their background. Let's say the GM is running a game with Expert (75%) level characters. You can opt to run a Hunter with primary skills around 75%. If you opt to run a character with more than one professional background, say Hunter and Foot Warrior, he (or she) would aquire all the Hunter and Foot Warrior primary skills at 60% (i.e Hunter and Foot Warrior at the Average level), but in the few cases that skills overlapped (i.e. Weapon skills, possibly First Aid or Stealth skills, etc.) the skill would go up one level. In other words the character would have any primary skills shared by the two professions at 75%. This eliminates a lot of the calculation otherwise required, with very little loss in accurac  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA29968; Fri, 20 Aug 93 14:45:56 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA05873; Fri, 20 Aug 93 15:44:50 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 20 Aug 93 15:45:15 EDT From: jjm@zycor.lgc.com (johnjmedway) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: difficulty & healing Date: Fri, 20 Aug 93 14:43:54 CDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <7DED6FA65A7@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >> From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) >> I have to disagree: Without the difficulty system, there is no need for >> a point system, and that's no need for the templates as offered. Most >> of the sense the current draft makes would be cancelled. I agree completely with Joerg. Dropping the admittedly weak difficulty system between RQ2 and RQ3 was a mistake. This is the sort of improvement which should have been made then. Dropping it back out will probably imply that the skills and background tables would be of little use to me ( as our group had already added difficulty ratings back in ), and thus make RQ4/ Companion/whatever of little use as well. And so what if it's easier/harder to become RuneLord in some cults as a result of easy/difficult skills. It's never been exactly even before. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) >> Lethality is always a problem. I'd like to see a system that allows >> wounds which cannot be healed at once, maybe only stilled - something >> ... >> least in fiction. To really heal a lethal wound, I'd expect some ritual >> healing magic as so nicely depicted in the Conan movie. >> >> This would also go nicely with Greg Staffords statement that >> distribution of healing magic is about ten times overrated among >> RQ-PCs, or in RQ in general. This Conan scene seems to be Stafford's favorite example. He brought it up twice ( at least ) at Origins. I'd say you have hit close to what Greg seemed to have in mind. Lingering and suffering are part of the world, even if there is magic in the world. >> I like the sorcerous Treat Wounds, by the way: no immediate effect >> except stopping the bleeding. If one plays the variant as used by the This, or some simpler version of yesterday's proposition by Rob Mace (in the Daily) would be a great improvement to the current "poof, you're better" style of healing. Here's another idea: only allow a healing spell to heal 2/3 of the damage from a particular wound. Force all else to heal with time. This is simpler than Rob's suggestion, but quite a bit less miraculous, obviously. I'd allow Divine Magic healing to be able to fully heal wounds, though I might drag out the return of points to 1 per turn after the end of the ceremony/ prayer. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 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 AA00517; Fri, 20 Aug 93 14:52:40 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA06194; Fri, 20 Aug 93 15:51:58 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 20 Aug 93 15:52:01 EDT From: jjm@zycor.lgc.com (johnjmedway) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: character generation: off-camera time Date: Fri, 20 Aug 93 14:50:59 CDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <7DEF5402EC5@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >> From: burt@ptltd.com (Burton Choinski) >> Date: Thu, 19 Aug 93 11:34:18 EDT >> >> I suggest also that age start at 14-16 (d3+13). Each level of a template >> details the aging, at 1d6+3 per level. >> ... >> Now, the actual age rolls could be tweaked. I based it on Master level, >> subtracting base age and dividing by 4. Perhaps initiate could be >> just 1d3 per level (since it is so lacking in skills). Perhaps it could >> be 1d6 for normal occupations. Something like this should be explicit in the final version of the system, though I'd say, since the packages are unequal, so should the time required be. It seems a bit severe for zero->Trained ( as in barely trained ) to require the same number of years as does Expert->Master, in any template. In some cases it may be necessary to pro-rate the time spent in a template, such as when determining when a character is eligible for initiation. This crops up in a messier fashion when there are already two templates whose times overlap ( often an Official will be a Noble at the same time, Soldier+ Initiate, etc. ). In these cases the ref should make a determination of what percentage of the time was package A, and what was B, etc. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 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 AA25013; Sat, 21 Aug 93 01:15:07 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA18099; Sat, 21 Aug 93 02:14:23 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 21 Aug 93 2:14:29 EDT From: Dustin Tranberg To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: SKILLS - Easy, Med., Hard Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1993 23:13:58 -0700 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <7E955CD683E@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Someone once posted a system which used the skill's base chance as a measure of its easy/hardness to learn. As I recall, it was basically to add the base chance to the skill modifier when attempting experience checks, practicing, etc. This notion may need tweaking, but it has a lot of elegance, and it is certainly true that the "easy" skills start high (Jump), and the tough ones start at 0% (sorcery). Best of all, it wouldn't add more stats to the game, yet allows for more of a continuum than the easy/../hard categories. Toodles, Dustin  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA23223; Fri, 20 Aug 93 23:39:37 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA16940; Sat, 21 Aug 93 00:38:48 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 21 Aug 93 0:38:57 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Rules Companion? Date: Sat, 21 Aug 93 14:37:26 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <7E7BD3E1AD9@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > This is Graeme replying to Joerg replying to Graeme replying to Wayne who was replying to ???? > In <76C37ED65FC@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu>, Graeme Lindsell writes: > > > Wayne writes: > >> Well...I'd say SOME kind of patch on sorcery would be a Really Good Idea. > >> And the Easy/Medium/Hard thing would be nice. Past that... > > > I'm more interested in a completely re-written sorcery system than a > > patch, ie something like Paul's presence system. Your point is well Joerg writes: > Not even the PRE-system is a complete rewrite; it keeps most of the > spells we know from the current version and thus keeps up > compatibility. Well I liked Burton's rewritten sorcery skill system as well: the spell plus knowledge system that was posted a couple of months ago > > > The Easy/Medium/Hard is interesting, but I don't see it as essential, > > and I'm worried about the way it's implemented: almost all of the > > cults judge progression by skill level, and cults with Easy cult > > skills will suddenly become much easier to advance in. > > I have to disagree: Without the difficulty system, there is no need for > a point system, and that's no need for the templates as offered. Most > of the sense the current draft makes would be cancelled. > I'd like to see your reasoning on this. The points system is useful for optional skills, and for skills that aren't primary to your career. I don't see removing easy/medium/hard as destroying the ectire draft. My complaint with the Easy/Medium/Hard is more the way it has been implemented than the idea: I can see easy skills racing away from all the other skills at a great rate. I think they could be implemented using the task difficulty system rather than the experience system. RQ does have modifiers for different levels of difficulty of tasks, though it is really only defined well for combat skills. All that has to be done is say that Easy skills are actually easy tasks ie you get +20% to your chance of success when attempting to use it. Instead of saying "2-H Spear is an easy skill: you get a +2d6 increase rather than +1d6" you can say "2-H Spear is an easy weapon to use: you get +20% to using it in most circumstances". The question is: is something easy because it is easy to learn, or because it is easy to do? > > > I think both versions are useless: I can't see a sorcerer ever blowing > > power to get a temporary spell. This is why I called it dull: the interesting > > thing about RQII sorcerers was the long duration spells (OK, the grossly > ^^ > Nice typo. RQ2 (why the roman numerals?) did know long-time spells; ^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^ just my notation: if it's confusing to people, I'll use digits instead. > anything stacked with Extension 3 would last a week. For runetypes with > reusable Extension no problem, just power yourself up before the > adventure, and have a quasi-permanent Bladesharp 4, protection 4 (or > was 6 the limit?), etc. What's the difference between a week or a year > in adventuring? Not much if you live next door to the local dungeon ie Pavis. In a journey/quest style adventure, the difference is greater. In fact it's in quests that sorcerers and shamans have a big advantage over priests, since they can get all their magic back in a day, or a few days if they need to fill storage or binding matrices. The priest is limited by his access to his temple. I think 4 was the limit for most spells apart from Heal. > > > overpowered thing as well). The draft RQIV sorcerers just seem to have a > > different variety of spirit magic. There's nothing unique about them. > > And a less reliable, to top it. Compare protection with damage > resistance, and you'll find that a Protection 3 will cancel out more > damage from a swordfighter with 1D4 damage bonus than a 3-point Damage > Resistance, and probably (I didn't calculate that) more than a 6-point > Damage Resistance. I once did a table that compared the average damage taken by a target with 10 point Damage Resistance to a target with 10 points of protection by twenty blows with damage from 1 to 20 (ie 1,2,3,4,5...20 point hits). The target with Damage Resistance would take (on average) 7.125 points of damage, the Protected target 2.75 (ignoring criticals, which would bypass both spells). Not being a statistician I doubt my methodology was correct, but I think the comparison was adequate. > > One way I have come up with to handle long- or medium-time Duration is > to make the use of a progressive table (not necessarily the current 2^X > table) dependent on ritual casting, i.e. long-time casting. My idea was > to use the ceremony-time-to-skill table with casting time one step (one > D6 in the table) per extra point of Duration. > > Opinions? > It has more flavour than the current draft system, but most long duration spells are cast back at base anyway: I think the table is more important to balancing the system. > > than the lethality of the weapons. I think Heal is the real culprit: > > there are very few wounds that kill you instantly in reality. I think > > most combat fatalities are the result of shock. > > Lethality is always a problem. I'd like to see a system that allows > wounds which cannot be healed at once, maybe only stilled - something > like False Healing in Troll Gods. Only a low percentage actually died > within five minutes from a lethal blow, other than having their throats > slit. Healing magic and First Aid skill ought to be able to stop Damage to the brain, neck (spine and arteries), heart, lungs and kidneys will kill in less than five minutes, I think. Gruesome topic :-( > immediate death, but there are enough examples of people slowly dying > from a wound, allowing them even to act heroically in the meantime - at > least in fiction. To really heal a lethal wound, I'd expect some ritual > healing magic as so nicely depicted in the Conan movie. > > This would also go nicely with Greg Staffords statement that > distribution of healing magic is about ten times overrated among > RQ-PCs, or in RQ in general. His other comment hasn't been addressed nearly as much: that the effect of most spells are not instantaneous. I haven't been able to think of an elegant way of implementing this; has anyone else had any bright ideas? From Greg's comments in the TOTRM interview, he seems to think magical powers should be rather more ambiguous than in the current RQ draft. > > I like the sorcerous Treat Wounds, by the way: no immediate effect > except stopping the bleeding. If one plays the variant as used by the There are a couple of other tricks you can do with heal to make it less effective. I think both of these have been discussed on the list before: i) "Healsharp": make Heal into a spell that boosts First Aid just like Bladesharp does Attack ie each point of Heal adds 5% to chance of succes and 1 extra point of damage healed. This combines the effect of two other proposals: Healing will take 5 rounds, since thats how long First Aid takes, and only one Heal per wound will work. ii) "Dispel Magic" style Heals: in order to heal a wound, a spell must equal or exceed the damage entirely. ie a 2 point heal doesn't effect a 3 point wound at all, but can heal 1 and 2 point wounds. You would need to keep track of individual wounds ie: a limb incapacitated by 3x2 point wounds could be healed using 3 Heal 2's; a limb incapacitated by 1x6point wound would need Heal 6 or better. This makes dedicated Healers with big Heal spells more important, as well as enhancing Divine and Sorcery spells. (Actually, did someone propose this recently?) Damage Notation in RQ: I find the way locational damage is written on character sheets to be a bit opaque. Take a typical arm for example Arm: 3 and damage is used to reduce this value. At zero HP the arm is useless, and at -3 it is crippled. Using the new rules, at -6 it can be permanently maimed or even chopped off. My complaint with the notation is that none of this is obvious from the sheet. I think a notation like: Arm: 3/6/9 would be more useful. As damage was taken, the player could note it down next to the location: when he takes 3 points of accumulated damage, it is useless, 6 crippled, 9 destroyed. Comments? One of Greg's other comments about RQ damage is that it doesn't address pain: everything either works or doesn't, there is no reduction in ability with wounds. Does anyone have any ideas about how this shoud be addressed? > > Finally a note about the future of this list: > > I don't know the copyright situation for the draft and our thoughts > upon it, but I advocate to continue our discussions to a point of > producing new drafts. Some day there will be the need for a new edition > of RQ, if it survives, and whosoever will hold the rights by then will > have to take an existing, playtested version into account. > > So keep on producing ideas and presenting them here. > Agreed: I think the discussions here have been very useful. > Joerg Baumgartner rq4@sartar.toppoint.de Graeme Lindsell a.k.a gal502@huxley.anu.edu.au  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA03638; Sat, 21 Aug 93 16:07:43 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA00941; Sat, 21 Aug 93 17:05:46 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 21 Aug 93 17:07:05 EDT From: "Loren J. Miller" To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: SKILLS - Easy, Med., Hard Date: 21 Aug 1993 17:07:01 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <7F831207096@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Dustin Tranberg writes: > Someone once posted a system which used the skill's base chance > as a measure of its easy/hardness to learn. > > As I recall, it was basically to add the base chance to the skill > modifier when attempting experience checks, practicing, etc. This was Jonathan Tweet's idea, and I posted it. I think it's the cleanest way to handle skill difficulty. It would need a tweak, as Dustin admits, for cultural skills and so on, but is basically sound. It takes less computation when advancing skills than the current (E/M/H/VH) system and doesn't require computation of skill chances during play like the performance difficulty systems would. Also, it would force us to rethink the skill base chances, which I think are currently troublesome. whoah, +++++++++++++++++++++++23 Loren Miller internet: MILLERL@wharton.upenn.edu "Science" does not remove the terror of the gods.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA16933; Sun, 22 Aug 93 11:59:32 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA15596; Sun, 22 Aug 93 12:58:44 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 22 Aug 93 12:58:49 EDT From: David Dunham (via RadioMail) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: SKILLS - Easy Med. Hard Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1993 09:45:41 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <80C13F44CAC@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> I'm jumping into this discussion without having seen the first part, but, I thought the different dice was a fairly elegant idea, because it gives you a chart that's short enough to memorize (and each skill can be identified on the character sheet -- see my other message). I assume everyone's convinced we need the extra complexity? David Dunham * Software Designer * Pensee Corporation Voice/Fax: 206-783-7404 * AppleLink: DDUNHAM * Internet: ddunham@radiomail.net  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA14463; Sun, 22 Aug 93 07:34:00 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA13099; Sun, 22 Aug 93 08:32:57 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 22 Aug 93 8:33:18 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: SKILLS - Easy, Med., Hard Date: Sun, 22 Aug 93 15:34:29 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <807A5B53B62@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > > Dustin Tranberg writes: > > As I recall, it was basically to add the base chance to the skill > > modifier when attempting experience checks, practicing, etc. Loren Miller writes: > > This was Jonathan Tweet's idea, and I posted it. I think it's the > cleanest way to handle skill difficulty. It would need a tweak, as > Dustin admits, for cultural skills and so on, but is basically sound. It > takes less computation when advancing skills than the current (E/M/H/VH) > system and doesn't require computation of skill chances during play like > the performance difficulty systems would. Also, it would force us to > rethink the skill base chances, which I think are currently troublesome. This sounds good. The only problem I can see occurs when a skill reaches 100%: the chance of increase of a skill with a high base skill will be many times greater than that of a low base skill (Of course, this may be a feature, rather than a bug). For very difficult skills, there may even be skills with a negative base: you would need a high positive skill modifier to even learn them, and progress would be slow. A more coherent set of base skill limits would be welcome too. Graeme Lindsell a.k.a gal502@huxley.anu.edu.au  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA25809; Sun, 22 Aug 93 22:10:06 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA24355; Sun, 22 Aug 93 23:07:19 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 22 Aug 93 23:09:26 EDT From: davidc@cs.uwa.edu.au (David Cake) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Character generation Date: Mon, 23 Aug 93 11:06:33 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <81638BC7678@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > Let's say the GM is running a game with Expert (75%) level characters. > You can opt to run a Hunter with primary skills around 75%. If you opt > to run a character with more than one professional background, say > Hunter and Foot Warrior, he (or she) would aquire all the Hunter and > Foot Warrior primary skills at 60% (i.e Hunter and Foot Warrior at the > Average level), but in the few cases that skills overlapped (i.e. > Weapon skills, possibly First Aid or Stealth skills, etc.) the skill > would go up one level. In other words the character would have any > primary skills shared by the two professions at 75%. This eliminates > a lot of the calculation otherwise required, with very little loss in > accuracy. If I read this correctly, I think that I like it a lot less than the current system. The problem is that it assumes that people with more than one professional background are equally proficient at all of them. This takes away a lot of the flexibility from the system. I like, for example, characters with a minimal fighting ability, but master craft abilities, or minimal abilities at second professions in other ways. Basically, this is a nice way of calculating characters with more than one primary profession, a profession in which they are fully competent. However, the current choosing multiple templates should quite definately be left in place, for people who want the maximum flexability. There is no reason to remove the previous options for character creation, just add a new system for people who find the old one too fiddly. By all means add the new mechanism, but don't remove the old one. I feel strongly on this - for me, if the above system was the only one, it would definately be a step backwards. > > > Oliver > > P.S. Sorry about the duplicate posting, my mailer misfired. > David Cake  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA26788; Sun, 22 Aug 93 23:18:17 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25219; Mon, 23 Aug 93 00:15:41 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 23 Aug 93 0:17:34 EDT From: JOVANOVIC@CUCCFA.CCC.COLUMBIA.EDU To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Character generation Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1993 0:12:21 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <8175C91766F@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David, the idea would be that this would be the quick and easy way to do it. For people that don't mind spending the time, the old system will still be in place - it offers more flexibility, but at a cost in time. Take care, see you in two weeks or so. Oliver  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA00800; Mon, 23 Aug 93 04:20:31 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA28591; Mon, 23 Aug 93 05:17:57 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 23 Aug 93 5:19:50 EDT From: Mystic Musk Ox To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: effects of damage Date: Mon, 23 Aug 93 10:17 BST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <81C66E719F1@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Re the question about effects of damage on skills (sorry I seem to have deleted the reference!), I've always thought of using something simple like -5% to all skills for each point of damage taken. Of course, this assumes that 2 x 1 points wounds are as debilitating as 1 x 2 point wound, but its a simple method. I'm assuming that this applies continually until the wound/s are healed. I seem to remember an odd rule from GURPS, where a wound subtracts from your next chance to hit (only!), which seems very strange. Healing: Like the idea of "Healsharp", as this actually gives an incentive for people to be good at First Aid, perhaps this could supplant the way that spirit heal spells work totally? I still feel that divine spells should do the cure immediately.. Mark Buckley.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA04833; Mon, 23 Aug 93 09:05:30 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA07775; Mon, 23 Aug 93 10:04:41 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 23 Aug 93 10:04:46 EDT From: burt@ptltd.com (Burton Choinski) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: COMMENTS Date: Mon, 23 Aug 93 10:00:58 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <8212DB80429@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> John Medway replies... %%>> From: burt@ptltd.com (Burton Choinski) %%>> Date: Thu, 19 Aug 93 11:34:18 EDT %%>> %%>> I suggest also that age start at 14-16 (d3+13). Each level of a template %%>> details the aging, at 1d6+3 per level. %%>> ... %%>> Now, the actual age rolls could be tweaked. I based it on Master level, %%>> subtracting base age and dividing by 4. Perhaps initiate could be %%>> just 1d3 per level (since it is so lacking in skills). Perhaps it could %%>> be 1d6 for normal occupations. %% %%Something like this should be explicit in the final version of the system, %%though I'd say, since the packages are unequal, so should the time required %%be. My Assuption was that Each career would be nearly the same. If you noticed the skill breakup in my example (many days back), it used the same skills listed in the RQ3 template (more or less). As such, each occupation would have ~the same number of basic skills. There would be variances in optional skills, which would tweak the ocupation costs a bit. %%It seems a bit severe for zero->Trained ( as in barely trained ) to %%require the same number of years as does Expert->Master, in any template. True. Perhaps it could go 1d4/1d6/2d4/2d6 for years? %%In some cases it may be necessary to pro-rate the time spent in a template, %%such as when determining when a character is eligible for initiation. This %%crops up in a messier fashion when there are already two templates whose %%times overlap ( often an Official will be a Noble at the same time, Soldier+ %%Initiate, etc. ). In these cases the ref should make a determination of what %%percentage of the time was package A, and what was B, etc. What do ya want, a complete solution? :) It's Runequest, not Burtquest. :) Seriously, That is an interesting problem I didn't think of. Anyone have any ideas around that? Graeme A Lindsell notes... %% Joerg writes: %% %%> Not even the PRE-system is a complete rewrite; it keeps most of the %%> spells we know from the current version and thus keeps up %%> compatibility. %% %% Well I liked Burton's rewritten sorcery skill system as well: the spell %%plus knowledge system that was posted a couple of months ago Thanks. Only problem is it's only a little (perhaps half) compatable with RQ3 sorcery, if that's where AH is trying to stay with. %% My complaint with the Easy/Medium/Hard is more the way it has %%been implemented than the idea: I can see easy skills racing away from %%all the other skills at a great rate. I think they could be implemented %%using the task difficulty system rather than the experience system. I disagree, sort of. The difficulties in the draft seem to emulate how hard it is to learn/master those skills. I can see Medicine being harder than leatherworking being harder that quarterstaff. Odds are, if I tried to take up all three I'd ramp up faster in quarterstaff. When they MAKE their rolls, the assumption is the task is "routine" difficulty. If it is "simple" task you give a bonus to their roll. If "difficult" they get a reduction. But the definition of "routine" will vary by the skill used. What might be a "routine" lockpicking is very different from a "routine" use of a combat skill -- there is a differance in time scales, details and the like. And (to go modern for a sec) a "routine" surgery is beyond my ability, though it may be just another days work for Joe doctor. %% His other comment hasn't been addressed nearly as much: that the %%effect of most spells are not instantaneous. I haven't been able %%to think of an elegant way of implementing this; has anyone else %%had any bright ideas? From Greg's comments in the TOTRM interview, %%he seems to think magical powers should be rather more ambiguous than %%in the current RQ draft. Depends on how you want to do it. Making Spirit magic more fickle (i.e. using Paul's Animalistic Shamans where you don't cast spirit spells, you bribe spirits to do the effects) can be as simple as rolling a d6 each round (including the round cast). If you get a 6, the spell finally activates. Bribing excess mana adds +1 to your roll. If you ask an INT 3 Heal spirit (i.e. does a Heal 3 spell) to heal you, and you bribe it with 2 extra mana (spending 5 total), that and each round thereafter you need to roll a 4+ on 1d6 for the healing to begin (as it dithers and ponders your request). Once i