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 AA03549; Wed, 1 Sep 93 00:36:40 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01631; Wed, 1 Sep 93 01:35:41 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 1 Sep 93 1:35:56 EDT From: Dustin Tranberg To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Long Fights Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1993 22:35:20 -0700 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <8F0B8FA2433@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Some have complained about fights, esp. between high-level characters, taking too long. Two features might help this. First, reinstating the RQ2 practice of subtracting attack over 100% from parries and dodges. Second, the special success options suggested elsewhere, in particular the FEINT, which does nothing on a normal success, but on a special success negates the opponent's next defense. Two fighters circling each other feinting, waiting for their opponent to drop the guard, are performing the classic "searching for an opening." Someone will lose their parry to a feint long before they would ever fail it themselves. (Remember, these are highly-skilled characters.) This is also the kind of maneuver that low-skill characters are very unlikely to try, as it just won't be worth it to them - they'd just swing. Just my 2 front teeth, Dustin  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA03935; Wed, 1 Sep 93 00:54:47 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01848; Wed, 1 Sep 93 01:53:59 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 1 Sep 93 1:54:03 EDT From: Dustin Tranberg To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Tension Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1993 22:53:28 -0700 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <8F10710016A@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> People express dismay with things like fatigue and bleeding, but I find that they introduce a wonderful amount of TENSION into a game. Especially bleeding. Bleeding is wonderful! There's nothing like having to rush under the sword of the enemy to try to keep a friend from having his/her life leak all over the floor, of knowing that someone who was knocked out in mid-combat might be dead by the time it's over, and isn't just lying in stasis on the floor. It forces you to make TOUGH choices. "Do I fight, or do I keep my meal ticket alive?" Same with fatigue, RQ3 style. "Do I fight, or do I take a breather?" Some of the most fun moments I've had in RQ have been when my GM and I thought that Endurance was a *temporal* spell, and the endurance points would run out on me at the most horrible times. I think maybe RQ3 fatigue isn't so much hard to keep track of, as it is that peiople just aren't used to doing it. OK, rant's over with, Dustin  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA04365; Wed, 1 Sep 93 01:11:40 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA02276; Wed, 1 Sep 93 02:10:52 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 1 Sep 93 2:10:55 EDT From: Dustin Tranberg To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Maneuver Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1993 23:10:34 -0700 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <8F14ED12182@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> OK, a quick and dirty compromise for Maneuver. How about characters get the CHOICE of 1) DEXx5 or 2) Weapon skill for any Maneuver-type roll. At least it's simple, Dustin  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA05491; Wed, 1 Sep 93 02:35:58 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA03624; Wed, 1 Sep 93 03:35:11 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 1 Sep 93 3:35:14 EDT From: davidc@cs.uwa.edu.au (David Cake) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: that ol' RQ Lite thingy again Date: Wed, 1 Sep 93 15:34:09 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <8F2B6F75745@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > > %% I don't think that you can do justice to divine magic in a Lite rules > %% set. Just look at the RQ3 Magic book to see a really weak explanation > %% of divine magic. > > Hmmm. Well, I think if we are pushing for RQlite to be more Glorantha > based, i.e. back to it's roots, then an updated GoG with notes on divine > magic should be made. I don't know how AH has it's book data. If in > computer someplace it may be relatively painless to crank it out quickly. > The Lite rules are allowed to have a weak explanation of Divine magic, they will already have a pretty weak explanation of spirit magic, fairly weak skills rules, fairly weak combat rules. The point is that they should have enough in the RQ Lite rules for you to pick up a module for RQ Normal (or should that be RQ Hevy?) and play it straight away. I think that knowing what Divine magic is and the basics of how it works (if not every obscure spell) is essential. To set up RQ Lite otherwise is a very bad publishing move - you now have two (very similar) games to support, one that only 'newbies' play, so no one wants to write for it. RQ Lite will only work if it is compatible with supplements. Otherwise it is only useful for demo games and introducing your kid sister to RQ, and becomes rather a white elephant. RQ Lite might involve reprinting parts of GoG, and it might not. It certainly should involve divine magic, in a weak form if it must be. I still don't know what all the fuss is about, people have got so excited about the RQ Lite idea, I have no objection, but the RQ Lite rules seem like a fairly small part of the overall RQ4 effort. My only concern is that many of the RQ Lite proposals look strongly like recipes for publishing disaster to me, propelled by a sort of fervour about RQ Lite that the more we can remove from it and still have it playable the better. It has to not only be playable, but recognisably RQ as well, and with sufficent rules to run a simple Glorantha based adventure. Otherwise what is the point? Cheers Dave Cake  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA06830; Wed, 1 Sep 93 04:07:08 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA04632; Wed, 1 Sep 93 05:06:18 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 1 Sep 93 5:06:21 EDT From: davidc@cs.uwa.edu.au (David Cake) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: that ol' RQ Lite thingy again Date: Wed, 1 Sep 93 17:05:24 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <8F43BE322A8@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > > > rules, fairly weak combat rules. The point is that they should have enough in > > the RQ Lite rules for you to pick up a module for RQ Normal (or should that > > be RQ Hevy?) and play it straight away. I think that knowing what Divine > magic > > is and the basics of how it works (if not every obscure spell) is essential. > > Wasn't this the idea behind the RQ Basic set, which resulted in 4 pages > at the start of each package about how to use it with RQ Basic? The Basic Set (I thought it was 'Standard Edition', but who cares what it was called, it was a waste of time) was perhaps an attempt at something similar to RQ Lite, and a bad one. That is why I am so wary of RQ Lite in general. I do think that RQ4 is possible if done carefully however. I think that the things that should be left out are simply those things that do not come up often in the middle of an adventure, or that only come up if you have the appropriate sort of character. I think that means that we can leave out enchanting, summoning, virtually all other ritual magic (well, except Warding), most of shamanism (its mostly only important if your character is a shaman), how to create familiars. But I sympathise with you exactly - RQ Lite must not require rubbish at the beginning of every module like the Standard set did. If a RQ Lite design does require this sort of stuff, then to me that is admitting that the RQ Lite idea is not practical for Glorantha. > > I don't think "less complex" = "weak" as you seem to. To me, the most > important things about RQ Lite rules are that the be a) short and b) produce > similar results to the full RQ4 rules. It's no good producing a system > that when used is much more lethal tha the full combat rules. I actually used the term "weak" in a depiberately vague way, and certainly did not mean to implay that combat would be less dangerous (or more). I actually think that RQ rules should be less complex, and also less complete, in that parts of the gane system that are only relevent to particular specialised characters would be removed. > > > To set up RQ Lite otherwise is a very bad publishing move - you now > > have two (very similar) games to support, one that only 'newbies' play, so > >no one wants to write for it. RQ Lite will only work if it is compatible with > > supplements. > > Which means that the RQ Lite rules have to be slim enough that stats for > RQ Lite characters can be included in a module without taking up to I think that this could almost not be necesary with a well designed RQ Lite, just ignore the spells that mean little to you (like Enchanting spells, and Bless Crops), and you do not need the hit location chart, just use the HP total, maybe one or two lines of simply calculated stats. > much space. The comment "no-one wants to write for" seemed to be what > happened to RQ Basic set: there was never a single publication that > only needed the rules in the basic set. I don't know why: a basic set > module would have been very easily adapted by a deluxe set GM, and a > good plot would work in both systems. Partly it was a vicious circle, no one owned it, so no one wrote for it, so no one bought it. I think just everyone who played RQ bought the Deluxe set, and ignored the standard. I don't think that if something had been written for the Standard rules that anyone would have cared. I would find designing for the Standard rules very irritating, as I would find the restrictions of spells simply annoying. > > > RQ Lite might involve reprinting parts of GoG, and it might not. It > > certainly should involve divine magic, in a weak form if it must be. > > What I think it has to contain is some cults. Cults show a new player > how people behave in the world, instead of acting like "generic fighter". > Whether you can include cults without divine magic is the question. If > you don't include priests I think you can, since initiates almost > never use divine magic anyway I think that RQ Lite without cults is so non-Gloranthan as to be not worth the trouble (but people like Loren have very different publishing ideas in mind than I do). I think that cults without Divine magic will seem very odd (not to mention pointless). > > {bits deleted} > > > that many of the RQ Lite proposals look strongly like recipes for publishing > > disaster to me, propelled by a sort of fervour about RQ Lite that the more > > we can remove from it and still have it playable the better. It has to not > only > > be playable, but recognisably RQ as well, and with sufficent rules to run a > > simple Glorantha based adventure. Otherwise what is the point? > > > The fervour is from fanatics who want to resurrect a dead RPG. That's > the point. It doesn't seem like the "RQ Renaissance" has done anything > except sell a few more products to converts. The other discussion > (which has been folded into the RQ Lite debate) concerns simpler combat > systems, which is mainly what I post about I don't think RQ is anything like dead, its just not that healthy. While RQ is not selling by the ton, its not the worst selling game either. And up until about a month ago, the 'RQ Renaissance' was one new product, and one product of reprints/updates with a long (and only average quality) scenario added in. Lets see how Dorastor etc. sells, and see if general gaming community interest can be rekindled. AH are just not actively recruiting for the scenarios that are to be released many months (and several releases) in the future. Just AH are having doubts, and not as confident as they once were. Personally, I thought that Ken said that RQ4 was 'in limbo', not dead, and that that it could well appear in some form, such as a companion. I am personally more interested in better game systems that just simpler ones, and that was what I thought the RQ4 effort was about. Many games companys live from supplement to supplement, like Steve Jackson Games, AH and Chaosium are both doing better than that. Glorantha is definately not about to disappear, and I strongly doubt that RQ is going to either. The worst that can happen is for AH to not renew their RQ license, and give it back to Chaosium. > > Cheers > > Dave Cake > > > > ditto  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA08030; Wed, 1 Sep 93 05:26:24 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA05585; Wed, 1 Sep 93 06:25:31 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 1 Sep 93 6:25:38 EDT From: Mystic Musk Ox To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: thoughts.... Date: Wed, 1 Sep 93 11:23 BST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <8F58D732EA2@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Some thoughts from the game I am currently running, experimental rules... Temples/Power On the high holy day, the priest/s lead the ceremony. Priests may contribute as many mp as desired, initiates may donate 1mp each. This amount is totalled and every 100 points gives 1 POW for use within the temple (much as currently in the rules). However, these points are not just for temple defence, but are retained for allocation by the High Priest of the Temple. At the moment I'm assuming they are available on a basis like the RunePower system (ie the effect is chosn when the points are allocated), but they could be allocated as for normal spell if people felt happier with that. Anyway, the point is that this give the Temple a fund of points to use, which can be used to defend the temple (as per RQ rules currently), OR to provide spells for casting by the priests, with the High Priest saying ok. Used points regenerate at the rate of 1/day. Points are only useable within the Temple, or maybe in related areas for such as Bless Crops etc. I'm also thinking that maybe the points could be used as permanent POW, with any points so used from the 'account' not regenerating until the new allocation on the High Holy day. This might cause a rush to spend points before the next High Holy day though. e.g. Temple gets 515 mp on the high holy day. This gives 5 points of divine magic allocatable by the High Priest. If 3 points are used (say) on an emergency Resurrection, then 1 point regenerates per day until back to 5. If 2 POW used to enchant an item, then the Temple is only regenerating back up to 3 points until the next high holy day, when the points are recalculated as normally. Thus a temple has a fund of points dependant on the number of worshippers. This provides encouragement for the priests etc to get people to attend. In return, the attendance gives the temple more points to cast throughout the year to help the initiates/worshippers of that cult. And it gives the High Priest a bit more responsibility! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Healing So far, I have been using the idea that Heal can only be used once per wound. However, I want to try the idea of First Aid being boosted by spirit spell 1pt/mp, and no seperate Healing spirit spell. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fatigue. I found that keeping track of short term fatigue proved a bit of a pain. So, I figured how about: 1/ calculate the effects of LT fatigue at the start of a melee (as usual) 2/ ignore ST fatigue during a combat 3/ after combat is over, require all participants to make another LT fatigue roll, or drop another LT level. (It seems to me that being tired always hits me once I stop doing something!) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Enhance/Improve (Cult Skill) Cults now teach these spells along with their other spirit spells, for the skills that they test as initiate requirements. They all have the effect of +5%/mp in the spell. Some have a difference eg Silence is similar to Improve(Sneak), Silence is +15%/mp, Bladesharp is similar to Improve(Wpn Attack), except for the +1 damage per level. I figure either: 1/ Make all spells operate at the Improve(Skill) level, or 2/ say that cults teaching the specific spirit spells eg Silence, Bladesharp get that effect, and any others merely get the Improve(Skill) spell. Thus War cult gets Bladesharp, but Underworld God gets Improve(Wpn Attack). Healing spells taught by Healer cults give +5% to First Aid and +1 healed. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comments? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- PS: Does anyone have any information about the cult of Gark the Calm? -----------------------------------------------------------------------------  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA10302; Wed, 1 Sep 93 06:46:34 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA09972; Wed, 1 Sep 93 07:45:44 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 1 Sep 93 7:45:49 EDT From: mc@cp.dias.ie To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Spirit combat rules Date: Wed, 1 Sep 93 12:43:16 BST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <8F6E49F2C88@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Does anybody else find the draft spirit combat rules flawed? Given that spirit combat regularly occurs (in my game) simultaneously with melee and spell combat I find the new rules too cumbersome and dice heavy. Does anybody have an alternative that they've tried out? I thought up this quick fix but haven't tried it in practice yet. Instead of the spirit combat attack and defense rolls I thought it would be easier to combine the combatants' MP and skill in spirit combat into a single score and resolve the conflict in the old (RQ3) fashion on the resistance table. This would mean the opponents use a value of MP+(skill/5) as the active/passive number on the table. They lose MPs in the usual fashion. This has the advantage of keeping the spirit combat to two rolls (success and damage) but uses the skill and raw Power of the combatants. For added complexity it should be possible to increase the damage done (MPs lost) at some cost in offensive or defensive skill. Myles. mc@cp.dias.ie  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA25446; Tue, 31 Aug 93 19:12:55 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA24602; Tue, 31 Aug 93 20:11:54 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 31 Aug 93 20:12:08 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Some RQ Lite ideas Date: Wed, 1 Sep 93 10:10:04 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <8EB53BC71DB@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > > Graeme Lindsell writes: > > > ii) Use Statx5 rolls more. In CoC the statx5 roll is used quite a > > bit: the intx5 idea roll, the edux5 know roll etc. I think these > > I like to handle it the other way round: let the players roll d100, and > see below which multiplyer te result is, this gives me several levels of > success without rolling dice over much. > > Of course this postulates that people can multiply numebers between one > and twenty with numbers between one and seven. Normal education ought to > produce this skill around the age of eleven... The aim of using a standard roll is to speed up play. Most, if not all players can multiply those numbers. Many can even do it quickly. What they can't do is do them instantly, and so the game slows down. To me, the best way to give a player a harmless introduction to a game is to give everything he needs to know on the character sheet. > > The exact nature of modifyers (multiply/divide versus add/substract) has > been the topic of many a discussion I had about RQ4 with the players of > my group. Both tend to be unfair and unbalanced: either the lower skills > are effectively reduced to zero (1 to 5 succeeds), or the higher skills > are penalized more than the lower. Neither is the desired effect. Any > ideas to solve this? > -- > Joerg Baumgartner rq4@sartar.toppoint.de > I've heard the "reduce to zero" argument before, and never understood it. If someone is facing a task that is beyond their ability, their chance _should_ be zero IMO. I like the way negative mods can reduce a chance of success of the lower skilled to nil while leaving the better trained with a decent chance of success. To me, it's a feature, not a bug.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA26371; Tue, 31 Aug 93 19:45:24 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AB25261; Tue, 31 Aug 93 20:44:34 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 31 Aug 93 20:44:38 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Comments on RQ Lite Date: Wed, 1 Sep 93 10:43:04 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <8EBDEFF6F1E@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Me replying to Burton replying to Loren >%% I like the one stat modifier idea, so let's say that base >%% chance for climb is based in STR, and since climb is pretty easy the > > This sounds like a harkening back to the "Ringworld" rules. It's not > a bad idea, but skills will need to be rearranged in different areas... > most craft skills woul dbe more DEX based, but some might be more dependant > on STR. > > This, would end up being VERY incompatible with RQ3, and not just a minor > change that could be converted easily. I doubt this would fly with the > "RQ3 similar" restriction. The compatibility with RQ3 rule is to allow the published scenarios to be used. Characters in published scenarios already have a set of skills worked out for them. I doubt the lower end skills (where the effect of differing bases is most profound) would be shown on most NPC's. Aside: I think AH are going too far with the "RQ3 compatible" idea. Few new editions of RPG's are completely compatible with previous editions: Champions 4th ed, GURPS 3rd (the missile combat rules), even AD&D2 (what I've seen of it) isn't entirely. I'd like more emphasis on a good rules system for RQ4, not one that sacrifices its integrity to backwards compatibliity with RQ3. > Hmmm. Well, I think if we are pushing for RQlite to be more Glorantha > based, i.e. back to it's roots, then an updated GoG with notes on divine > magic should be made. I don't know how AH has it's book data. If in > computer someplace it may be relatively painless to crank it out quickly. Personally, I'd prefer a updated "Cults of Prax". GoG was best for people who already knew about Glorantha. CoP would be better for new players. The appeal of the cult system is it shows people the types of behaviour in their society. Most of the cults in CoP have been updated in various places in RQ3 material (River of Cradles, Sun County, Humakt's in ToTRM 5): just bundle them together, add the small rules changes for RQ4 (say cult limits on spirit magic, and [please Invisible God!] yearly reusable rune magic for initiates) and you've got a solid introduction to good player cults. >Malcolm Cohen >%% What I want to see is a version of RQ which is not more "complicated" than >%% RQ3 but is more effective - i.e. the complications actually give us >%% something worthwhile (unlike, to pick everyone's favourite, RQ3 fatigue). >%% But I do not see the need to chop out bits of the system which have >%% withstood the test of time. > > Agreed. We want a streamlining of clumsy mechanics (using "rules of thumb" > rather than look-up tables, a-la the "ROLLx20 critcal, ROLLx5 special" > rule rather than a division or table look up, the use of > "A-B+10 or less" rule for the resistance table (now THAT was a waste of > book space :), etc. Agreed here as well. An elegant set of game mechanics is one thing that attracts me to a system. Re: the raging RQLite debate. There seems to be a basic division between people who want a simplified combat system and those who like the current system and don't want to lose detail. I think it might be more important for RQ 4 to be compatible with RQ Lite than with RQ3: probably best done by printing complete stats for both combat systems in the new scenarios. If the RQ Lite stats can be short this can be done without taking up too much space. 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 AA26439; Tue, 31 Aug 93 19:48:56 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25313; Tue, 31 Aug 93 20:48:07 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 31 Aug 93 20:48:10 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: More RQ-Lite comments Date: Wed, 1 Sep 93 10:46:51 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <8EBEE860D10@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > OK, ok, ok, mea culpa. > > In our game we just use roll * 5 or roll * 20. I admit it is not perfect, > so shoot me. However it is a lot easier than the current table checking. > The subtract 1 simply allows more critical hits/specials. > > I (and most of the players) are happy with the straight forward multiply > rule since it is so much quicker to work out. I put in the subtract 1 > to satisfy the rule lawyers that lurk on the net and failed in that respect :-(. > regards tim > > > Criticals/Specials/Fumlbes in RQ The discussion about the chance of criticals in RQ led me to take a gander at the table in the book. It goes like this: Skill Critical Special Fumble 01-07 01 01 96-00 08-10 01 01-02 96-00 11-12 01 01-02 97-00 13-17 01 01-03 97-00 18-22 01 01-04 97-00 23-27 01 01-05 97-00 28-29 01 01-06 97-00 30 01-02 01-06 97-00 31-32 01-02 01-07 98-00 etc This isn't a terribly memorable progression. The values are being rounded off, and so the critical=skill/20 changes from 01 to 01-02 at 30, rather than near any multiple of 20, and the changes in specials don't happen at any multiple of 5. As an alternative, try rounding up. The table then becomes: Skill Critical Special Fumble 01-05 01 01 96-00 06-10 01 01-02 96-00 11-15 01 01-03 96-00 16-20 01 01-04 96-00 21-25 01-02 01-05 97-00 26-30 01-02 01-06 97-00 31-35 01-02 01-07 97-00 36-40 01-02 01-08 97-00 41-45 01-03 01-09 98-00 It increases the number of criticals, specials and fumbles, but it is easier to calculate, and the "if (roll-1)x20 is a hit then the roll is a critical" rule works. Spell Attacks Heresy A more heretical concept: I was thinking about the dodge/parry controversy (ie should they be separate skills) and wondered "could the dodge system work for spell attacks?". Currently a spell attack needs a casting check (POW x 5 + magic modifier for RQIII spirit magic) and then a MP vs MP resistance roll. Instead, try the caster just making the one POW x 5 roll, and the target doing the same as a dodge like defense ie if the caster had a normal success, the target needs a normal success to block, if the caster specialed, the target needs a special or critical as well etc. This would change the effects of having a high POW quite a bit: instead of POW 20 opponents having a 50% chance of effecting each other, it would only be 20% in practice(ie a special). The chances of successfor widely differing POW changes as well: a POW 10 against POW 20 would still have a 50% chance of blocking most of the POW 20 attacks, and has a 10% chance of a special. Could this be a system RQ Lite could use? Has anyone tried to do this before? 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 AA23294; Wed, 1 Sep 93 12:15:32 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA24827; Wed, 1 Sep 93 13:14:34 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 1 Sep 93 13:14:42 EDT From: David Dunham (via RadioMail) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Spirit combat rules Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1993 10:14:06 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <8FC5EAC017C@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >Myles. mc@cp.dias.ie >Does anybody else find the draft spirit combat rules flawed? Given that spirit >combat regularly occurs (in my game) simultaneously with melee and spell >combat I find the new rules too cumbersome and dice heavy. Does anybody have >an alternative that they've tried out? Yes, and they're going back to MP vs MP. The Spirit Combat skill would determine the lowest MP you use on the resistance table (if you have POW 16 and 49% Spirit Combat, you always use at least 8 on the resistance table). The thought is that only shamans would learn Spirit Combat. There are also new spells like Spirit Dancing, tho I don't have the explanation. I suspect most of this detail is unnecessary -- it's all to support specialists, and becoming a shaman simply isn't a goal for most PCs. NPC shamans would be better served by the same space being used to describe _what_ they can do, not how. All the shaman detail could be in a separate book, "The Magic of Glorantha" (which would include all of sorcery, as well as shamans and additional details on cults). 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 AA21556; Wed, 1 Sep 93 11:47:01 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA23142; Wed, 1 Sep 93 12:46:02 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 1 Sep 93 12:46:07 EDT From: "Roderick Robertson, SC1-5, x52936" To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: thoughts.... Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1993 09:25 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <8FBE5A7272A@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >Enhance/Improve (Cult Skill) >Cults now teach these spells along with their other spirit spells, for >the skills that they test as initiate requirements. >They all have the effect of +5%/mp in the spell. >Some have a difference eg Silence is similar to Improve(Sneak), Silence >is +15%/mp, Bladesharp is similar to Improve(Wpn Attack), except for the +1 >damage per level. I figure either: >1/ Make all spells operate at the Improve(Skill) level, or >2/ say that cults teaching the specific spirit spells eg Silence, Bladesharp > get that effect, and any others merely get the Improve(Skill) spell. > Thus War cult gets Bladesharp, but Underworld God gets Improve(Wpn Attack). > Healing spells taught by Healer cults give +5% to First Aid and +1 healed. I'd say that Improve(Skill) generally adds 15% to the skill, with some exceptions: Bladesharp takes 10% and turns it into 1 point of damage, Healsharp turns 10% into one point of Damage healed, Parrysharp might take that 10% and turn it into two points of Armor (only on the parrying weapon), etc. This could also open the way for Improve Attack, which adds 15% to your attack skill, but no extra damage. Also remember the reverse spells, like Dullblade, which Subtract from the target's skill. Howabout Dullheal, which makes an opponent's Medic more likely to blow his roll? (NB. I used -Sharp and Dull- only to suggest similarities in how the spell works. I think most of the spells above are named horribly, and do not suggest that those be the real names). I'd suggest, however, that -Sharp and Dull- spells be on a Cult-only basis, and only available for the Cult skills. Improve (Skill) would have many applications outside of combat. What about non-physical skills? would there be Improve (Read Lunar)? Improve (World Lore)?  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA21561; Wed, 1 Sep 93 11:47:05 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA23144; Wed, 1 Sep 93 12:46:09 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 1 Sep 93 12:46:11 EDT From: "Roderick Robertson, SC1-5, x52936" To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RQ4 Diet Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1993 09:38 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <8FBE6664C49@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> My two cents worth (When did front teeth get to be currency?) on RQ Lite: Instead of trying to make a rules set where you have to include notes in each supplement on how to use it, include how to modify RQ Classic in RQ Lite. To Clarify: In the RQ Lite rules, include a chapter on how to read RQ Classic character descriptions and turn them into RQ Lite. "To calculate Armor coverage, take the average of the AP on the Head, Chest and Abdomen of the Classic character. This is the Character's Armor Value" "As we only use one Weapon Skill in RQ Lite, use the Highest percentage in the weapon as the Weapon Skill" Doing this allows the supplement writer to write to one set of rules, and also shows the RQ Lite GM that there is a lot more out there for him *If he wants it*. I'd say include a start-up scenario/campaign setting written in RQ Lite in the rules, but after that all supplements would be pure RQ Classic. As a side note, I use a "RQ Lite" for my own campaigns for NPC Spear-carriers. Who cares if they aren't fully blown characters, they are only meant to slow down the PC's for a few rounds while the major NPC's get away or arm up. Roderick Robertson  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA06835; Thu, 2 Sep 93 17:37:56 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA22876; Thu, 2 Sep 93 18:35:31 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 2 Sep 93 18:35:43 EDT From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Some RQ Lite ideas Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1993 18:38:12 MEZ Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <919BA2B7B18@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> In <8EB53BC71DB@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu>, you write: >> I like to handle it the other way round: let the players roll d100, and >> see below which multiplyer te result is, this gives me several levels of >> success without rolling dice over much. >> Of course this postulates that people can multiply numebers between one >> and twenty with numbers between one and seven. Normal education ought to >> produce this skill around the age of eleven... > The aim of using a standard roll is to speed up play. Most, if not > all players can multiply those numbers. Many can even do it quickly. > What they can't do is do them instantly, and so the game slows down. > To me, the best way to give a player a harmless introduction to a > game is to give everything he needs to know on the character sheet. >> The exact nature of modifyers (multiply/divide versus add/substract) has >> been the topic of many a discussion I had about RQ4 with the players of >> my group. Both tend to be unfair and unbalanced: either the lower skills >> are effectively reduced to zero (1 to 5 succeeds), or the higher skills >> are penalized more than the lower. Neither is the desired effect. Any >> ideas to solve this? > I've heard the "reduce to zero" argument before, and never understood > it. If someone is facing a task that is beyond their ability, their > chance _should_ be zero IMO. I like the way negative mods can reduce > a chance of success of the lower skilled to nil while leaving the > better trained with a decent chance of success. To me, it's a > feature, not a bug. Well, the way I see it there is a problem that demands one success level higher than usual. Some guy take it as routine nevertheless, some hve to switch from routine to alert, some who do it in alert state quite reliable really have to think and work hard to achieve it, and some who usually have to work hard now arre chanceless. The problem with this philosophy is that RQ know only fumble >=100-(100-sk)/20, 100 =>true failure >sk, >=96 =>true success <=sk, <=05 =>true special <=sk/5 critical <=sk/20, 1 =>true if sk>=1 (supercrit etc.) ... where I'd like to see fumble >(100-sk/20) real failure >(100-sk/5) failure >sk+10 stand off <=sk+10 marginal success <=sk success <=sk-10 good success <=sk/2 special <=sk/5 critical <=sk/20 (supercrit etc.) ... possibly with Tim Posney's system of multiplying, and getting skills up more difficult than now Yes, that means even more calculation, or looking up in a table for less-than-lighning calculators, but that's the style I'd like to see. Opinions, Flames...? -- Joerg Baumgartner rq4@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1993 13:59 CDT Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA29265; Wed, 1 Sep 93 13:59:45 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA29886; Wed, 1 Sep 93 14:58:41 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 1 Sep 93 14:58:50 EDT From: Simon Basham To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Is the rulers the real issue Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <8FE1BD44C37@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> First a statement to think about: "Are the Rules the real issue in the unpopularity of RuneQuest???" So far most discussions I have read seem to assume they are and indeed until recently I thought so too. I recently found a close analogy to RQ in my local club which I am on the committee of. Club membership needed a boost, we were putting up posters, handing out leaflets etc... some people where even phoning me up to ask for more details and sounded really keen. But in the end we get very few new members, when we do they think the club is great and within a few weeks all their friends are coming. Conclusion> People like the club and think that any costs to themselves are worthwhile, but they either don't see the posters we put up or don't bother to follow them through. Why??? I don't know. My RQ group is very similar. Most of my group is new to RQ, but once they play it they think it is wonderful and quickly ditch games like D&D et al.. So how does this relate to RQ???? I don't think that the rules are the main issue. Most people who go into a games store buy a game on the strength of the price, the cover artwork and any reviews they may have read. In most cases people are not in a possition to flip extensively through the rules before deciding to buy, so whilst improving the rules is obviously very important and will bring in new players issues such as the games product and press image are more important. I suggest a few items: Posters in shops (preferably large and colour) Better pricing of the basic rules and a better intro adventure (this is surprisingly seen to be very important, most people want something they play immediately) Better rules presentation, lets face it the box is very dull if your a 14 year old and the blurb on the back is hardly going to make people go out and buy it. Get it into the shops, if people can't see it they won't buy it!!! I know that many shop owners don't buy RQ because they think it is dead, so get into magazines as often as possible. How about AH releasing an official mini scenario for publication in magazines in the UK/US etc.. I think IMHO that rather concentrate on trying to beef up things with RQ4 it is more benefilcial in the long term to re-launch RQ3. Make shops wont to sell it, get it on the front of shelves and make people want to buy it. Recent supplements have had excellent production and wonderful cover art, lets carry this over to the rules. A new box and a lower price shouldn't be to expensive and would make a hell of a difference. (The flow of crap has now ended, normality is resumed) Jarec@CIX.Compulink.Co.UK  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA16438; Wed, 1 Sep 93 19:44:10 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA11086; Wed, 1 Sep 93 20:43:16 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 1 Sep 93 20:43:24 EDT From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Spirit combat rules Date: Wed, 01 Sep 93 13:01:37 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <903DA8F4428@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> mc@cp.dias.ie writes: > Does anybody else find the draft spirit combat rules flawed? Given that spiri > combat regularly occurs (in my game) simultaneously with melee and spell > combat I find the new rules too cumbersome and dice heavy. Does anybody have Well, truth to tell...no. In practice, there's only one more die roll than there was in the old days, and since being fully committed to spirit combat means you aren't doing anything effective in physical combat...I can't say I understand the problem. ------------------------------ 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 AA05054; Wed, 1 Sep 93 15:16:11 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA03267; Wed, 1 Sep 93 16:15:13 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 1 Sep 93 16:15:19 EDT From: David Dunham (via RadioMail) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re^n: RQ4 Diet Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1993 13:14:50 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <8FF618B5931@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) >> I think you have this backwards. Any rules set can be _complicated_, but >> they're hard to simplify. It's moderately easy to say, _in a separate >> place_, "OK, you want to be more detailed about who hits first? Here are >> some rules that take into account reach and weapon type." It's harder to >> see strike rules and then see a section that says "Oh by the way, you can >> not use these" (which ElfQuest does!). A beginning GM can more easily add >> complexity if it's to his taste, but it's hard to remove something without >> completely understanding the system. > >I said what I meant. A system that is designed for a more complicated >approach can usually be stripped down without throwing things out of >wack, as long as you understand how the parts fit together. Adding extra >often imbalance things in ways that are difficult to fix. I know you wrote what you meant, but I still think you're wrong. And then you agree with me -- that you have to know the system in order to simplify it. By definition, new GMs don't know the system, so they have to learn the entire complex system before they can simplify it. This is a mistake in rules presentation (made by e.g. ElfQuest). I definitely agree that adding things will imbalance a game, but we're not asking people to do that, we're asking them to buy a rules supplement where things have been thought through (much of it being stuff that's already there today). I'll say it again: I don't think any part of RQ has to be thrown away. I think that RuneQuest should be presented in a way that it is clearly an elegant, easy-to-use system (saying "New Streamlined Rules" on the box isn't enough, it has to _look_ streamlined by virtue of being short), and the best way to do that is to print the optional rules in a separate publication. >But my real point was that there is almost no point that someone cannot >argue that a rules set could be a little simpler and a little quicker. >My question always is "What did you decide to ignore to get it that way?" Are you familiar with Prince Valiant? BTW, I don't see RQ-Lite as a given, that's why I'm arguing that it's a good idea and trying to show ways it could be done. >From: Dustin Tranberg >Especially bleeding. Bleeding is wonderful! There's nothing like >having to rush under the sword of the enemy to try to keep a friend >from having his/her life leak all over the floor, of knowing that >someone who was knocked out in mid-combat might be dead by the time >it's over, and isn't just lying in stasis on the floor. My RQ3 house rule was something like having to make a CON vs (negative HP + number of rounds below zero) roll on the resistance table. This obviously involved some bookkeeping, but less than on a per-wound basis. And even it shouldn't be in the basic game. >From: "Roderick Robertson, SC1-5, x52936" > Instead of trying to make a rules set where you have to include >notes in each supplement on how to use it, include how to modify RQ >Classic in RQ Lite. > > In the RQ Lite rules, include a chapter on how to read RQ Classic >character descriptions and turn them into RQ Lite. Yes, this is what I'd had in mind. I'd go a little further, and print the single armor value (and major wound level, if that's part of RQ-Lite) in supplements, and maybe put the single weapon skill in boldface. > As a side note, I use a "RQ Lite" for my own campaigns for NPC >Spear-carriers. Who cares if they aren't fully blown characters, they >are only meant to slow down the PC's for a few rounds while the major >NPC's get away or arm up. I dislike having different rules for PCs and NPCs, and I suspect one reason may be the fact that Rurik Runespear was killed by trollkin. In RQ, any foe (especially in multiple) is not to be taken lightly, and the rules should reflect this. >From: Simoe, the cover artwork >and any reviews they may have read. In most cases people are not in a >possition to flip extensively through the rules before deciding to buy, >so whilst improving the rules is obviously very important and will bring >in new players issues such as the games product and press image are more >important. You raise some good points. While in most shops you can't see the rules before you buy, you _can_ see them when you get home. I have quite a few games sitting on my shelf that I'll never play because the rules didn't appeal to me. Simple rules won't matter to the would-be GM, but it's only when he decides it's something he can run that his players might buy copies. And I think the best way to get a press image of easy-to-play is to be in fact, easy-to-play. Presumably, marketing issues would be addressed in any new edition (be it a full new RQ4 version, or RQ-Lite). And the most important one might be, lose the box. That has to add at least $1 to the cost, and Avalon-Hill doesn't know what size to make boxes anyway.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA05548; Wed, 1 Sep 93 15:24:53 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA03593; Wed, 1 Sep 93 16:22:26 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 1 Sep 93 16:22:33 EDT From: burt@ptltd.com (Burton Choinski) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: COMMENTS Date: Wed, 1 Sep 93 16:18:38 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <8FF809100DE@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Graeme A Lindsell %% Instead, try the caster just making the one POW x 5 roll, %% and the target doing the same as a dodge like defense ie if %% the caster had a normal success, the target needs a normal %% success to block, if the caster specialed, the target needs %% a special or critical as well etc. Interesting. Matching characters of equal power, you get a high of 25% effectiveness (on average) at around 10 POW, decreasing as you have higher or lower POWs. =============================================================================== Roderick Robertson %% Instead of trying to make a rules set where you have to include %% notes in each supplement on how to use it, include how to modify RQ %% Classic in RQ Lite. This sounds like the better way to me. Much easier to prune then try and wedge new rules in later. %% I'd say that Improve(Skill) generally adds 15% to the skill, with %% some exceptions: Bladesharp takes 10% and turns it into 1 point of %% damage, Healsharp turns 10% into one point of Damage healed, %% Parrysharp might take that 10% and turn it into two points of Armor %% (only on the parrying weapon), etc. This could also open the way for %% Improve Attack, which adds 15% to your attack skill, but no extra %% damage. Also remember the reverse spells, like Dullblade, which %% Subtract from the target's skill. Howabout Dullheal, which makes an %% opponent's Medic more likely to blow his roll? %% I'd suggest, however, that -Sharp and Dull- spells be on a %% Cult-only basis, and only available for the Cult skills. Improve %% (Skill) would have many applications outside of combat. Don't forget "Reduce ". Granted, it obly works for some skills and is probably rarer. "Reduce Scan" makes the air hazy or foggy, perhaps, etc. I like the idea, though. A consistant extension. %% What about non-physical skills? would there be Improve (Read %% Lunar)? Improve (World Lore)? Why not? If we go on the idea that they are not spells, but spirits that do your bidding, why can't it whisper the info into your ear? :) I would think that anything Knowledge based be fairly rare, and Communication based be extremely rare. Physical skills (Agility, Manipulation, Stealth, Perception) I can see a spirit being asked to help out with much more. -- Burton  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA05368; Wed, 1 Sep 93 15:21:32 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA03505; Wed, 1 Sep 93 16:20:03 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 1 Sep 93 16:20:10 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Is the rulers the real issue Date: Wed, 1 Sep 93 16:20:44 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <8FF76AE1261@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Jarec has a lot of good points about publicity. If you have seen the French edition of RQ you will know what I mean when I say we should do things here more like they do there. Oriflam has some great art and the example story is better. If AH gives up the licence perhaps Chaosium could encourage Oriflam to do an english language edition. In any case some of the art from the French edition would make great posters. Does anyone know who has the licence for distributing RQ in Quebec? Six million potential buyers... - Paul PS> I suppose it is our duty to recruit newbies as well; I do this to some extent but probably should try to set off a chain reaction. Have not trained any new GMs for years... the newer people seem more interested in Vampire, etc. - the `third generation' games.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA00614; Wed, 1 Sep 93 14:23:07 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA00998; Wed, 1 Sep 93 15:22:05 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 1 Sep 93 15:22:09 EDT From: "Loren J. Miller" To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Is the rulers the real issue Date: 01 Sep 1993 15:22:51 -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: <8FE7F0A1BE4@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> I agree that the rules aren't the most important part of the RQ renaissance, but they are the focus of this list. I'd prefer to see the rules discussions stay here instead of filling up the digest, which I'd prefer to see concentrating on Glorantha and on finished rules ideas, rather than incomplete ideas. That's also why I think we can afford to spend time on this list working out rules variants. Also, if you are against RQ Lite then just ignore the RQ Lite postings. They're marked well enough. I think there are enough people on this list to support two development efforts, one for RQ Lite and one for RQ4-big-and-hairy, and don't think that our discussion is in danger of losing steam because of fragmentation. In other words, if the idea of RQ Lite just makes you want to puke then keep your feelings to yourself. Participate in a positive way or not at all. Somebody could lose an eye... That's enough soapbox oratory for now. 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 AA08098; Wed, 1 Sep 93 16:09:57 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA05744; Wed, 1 Sep 93 17:09:09 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 1 Sep 93 17:09:12 EDT From: "Loren J. Miller" To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Unsubscribing Date: 01 Sep 1993 17:10:09 -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: <90048585503@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> To sign off from the list do the normal thing: send email to listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu subject line doesn't matter much first line of message should say "unsub rq-playtest" followed by several blank lines That's it. -- Loren  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA05272; Wed, 1 Sep 93 02:16:19 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA03354; Wed, 1 Sep 93 03:15:28 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 1 Sep 93 3:15:35 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Maneuver Date: Wed, 1 Sep 93 17:13:54 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <8F262800747@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > > > OK, a quick and dirty compromise for Maneuver. How about characters > get the CHOICE of 1) DEXx5 > or 2) Weapon skill I'd be inclined to just use weapon skill. Dex x 5 is a bit lenient. I'd like to expand the use of the weapon skills from just attack or just parry.The way RQ3 handles the knowledge a skill covers has always seemed strange: one skill for hiding in any area, 2 skills to cover most social skills (orate, fast talk), one to treat wounds of any sort, and one for attack and one for parry for each and every weapon. For RQ Lite I'd say just one weapon skill for use as attack parry and maneuver for each group of weapons, with perhaps an unfamiliarity bonus eg for using a scimitar if you usually use a broadsword. > > for any Maneuver-type roll. > > At least it's simple, > That's usually a virtue, and sometimes a curse. > Dustin 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 AA05479; Wed, 1 Sep 93 02:33:11 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA03568; Wed, 1 Sep 93 03:32:24 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 1 Sep 93 3:32:26 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Long Fights Date: Wed, 1 Sep 93 17:30:56 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <8F2AAF778FE@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > > Second, the special success options suggested elsewhere, in particular > the FEINT, which does nothing on a normal success, but on a special > success negates the opponent's next defense. Not quite: they need a special parry to stop the feint. I don't like the way feint is implemented wrto Dodge. A feint has drastic effects on a parrying opponent, but just halves your chance with a dodge. Actually, that's one reason why I'd like to remove Dodge as a combat option from RQ4: It'd allow us to use the Dodge style "need a special parry to stop a special attack" rule for parry instead. The dodge style conflict of skills is better than parry IMHO, but if you use it for parry and keep dodge as the same then there is no reson to ever parry. Maybe we could go back to original RQ3 dodge (ie you need a critical dodge to stop a critical hit: a normal or a special has no effect at all) and give parry the later style of defense ie a special hit against an ordinary parry gets through but does normal damage, a critical against normal parry does unblocked special damage > > Dustin > 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 AA11874; Wed, 1 Sep 93 17:29:44 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA08242; Wed, 1 Sep 93 18:28:51 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 1 Sep 93 18:28:57 EDT From: Pete c/o Tom Yates To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Enough Is Enough! Date: Wed, 1 Sep 93 18:31:58 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <9019C042546@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Recently I've been thinking about starting up a new campaign. Normally I run a RuneQuest Glorantha campaign every couple of years. I'm overdue to start a new one, but the idea repels me. RQLite, RQ4, RQ3, RQDiet...somewhere along the line, something went wrong. Something got lost between all the discussion and debate -- the essential sense of *fun* that I haven't seen much since RQ2. RQ2 -- now, *that* appeals to me. Am I the only one who wants to run RQ2, read RQ2 material, and pretend that the last ten years never happened? RuneQuest needs Greg Stafford. No offense intended to the many who've worked on RQ since (except for Nick Atlas -- *him* I'll gladly offend), but RQ/Glorantha needs its creator at the helm to flourish properly. Chaosium seems to have done well for quite some time -- maybe they could handle RQ now? RQ has never been a profitable proposition for Avalon Hill, and it seems unlikely that it ever will be. Yet it must have made money for Chaosium. Maybe, someday... Or maybe I'm just having a bad day. -->Pete ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Maranci Malden, Massachusetts pete@slough.mit.edu or rune@trystero.com or rune@ace.com "Son, I am able," she said "though you scare me." "Watch," said I "Beloved," I said, "watch me scare you though." Said she "Able am I, Son." TMBG  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA06079; Wed, 1 Sep 93 03:17:21 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA04071; Wed, 1 Sep 93 04:16:31 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 1 Sep 93 4:16:35 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: that ol' RQ Lite thingy again Date: Wed, 1 Sep 93 18:15:04 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <8F3677E7204@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > > > The Lite rules are allowed to have a weak explanation of Divine magic, they > will already have a pretty weak explanation of spirit magic, fairly weak skills > rules, fairly weak combat rules. The point is that they should have enough in > the RQ Lite rules for you to pick up a module for RQ Normal (or should that > be RQ Hevy?) and play it straight away. I think that knowing what Divine magic > is and the basics of how it works (if not every obscure spell) is essential. Wasn't this the idea behind the RQ Basic set, which resulted in 4 pages at the start of each package about how to use it with RQ Basic? I don't think "less complex" = "weak" as you seem to. To me, the most important things about RQ Lite rules are that the be a) short and b) produce similar results to the full RQ4 rules. It's no good producing a system that when used is much more lethal tha the full combat rules. > To set up RQ Lite otherwise is a very bad publishing move - you now > have two (very similar) games to support, one that only 'newbies' play, so > no one wants to write for it. RQ Lite will only work if it is compatible with > supplements. Otherwise it is only useful for demo games and introducing your > kid sister to RQ, and becomes rather a white elephant. Which means that the RQ Lite rules have to be slim enough that stats for RQ Lite characters can be included in a module without taking up to much space. The comment "no-one wants to write for" seemed to be what happened to RQ Basic set: there was never a single publication that only needed the rules in the basic set. I don't know why: a basic set module would have been very easily adapted by a deluxe set GM, and a good plot would work in both systems. > RQ Lite might involve reprinting parts of GoG, and it might not. It > certainly should involve divine magic, in a weak form if it must be. What I think it has to contain is some cults. Cults show a new player how people behave in the world, instead of acting like "generic fighter". Whether you can include cults without divine magic is the question. If you don't include priests I think you can, since initiates almost never use divine magic anyway > I still don't know what all the fuss is about, people have got so > excited about the RQ Lite idea, I have no objection, but the RQ Lite rules > seem like a fairly small part of the overall RQ4 effort. My only concern is Well right now there is no RQ4 effort, since AH decided to cancel the mid-94 publishing date. I think that's a stupid descision, but when has AH ever done anything smart with RQ? > that many of the RQ Lite proposals look strongly like recipes for publishing > disaster to me, propelled by a sort of fervour about RQ Lite that the more > we can remove from it and still have it playable the better. It has to not only > be playable, but recognisably RQ as well, and with sufficent rules to run a > simple Glorantha based adventure. Otherwise what is the point? > The fervour is from fanatics who want to resurrect a dead RPG. That's the point. It doesn't seem like the "RQ Renaissance" has done anything except sell a few more products to converts. The other discussion (which has been folded into the RQ Lite debate) concerns simpler combat systems, which is mainly what I post about Cheers > Dave Cake > >  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA16072; Wed, 1 Sep 93 19:30:53 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA10814; Wed, 1 Sep 93 20:29:36 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 1 Sep 93 20:29:53 EDT From: David Cheng To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Enough Is Enough! Date: Wed, 1 Sep 93 20:27:43 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <9039F753524@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> # RQ2 -- now, *that* appeals to me. Am I the only one who wants to # run RQ2, read RQ2 material, and pretend that the last ten years never # happened? No, you're not the only one. But, I for one think there are some positive things in RQ3. Limited spirit magic & rune magic spell lists, new cult frameworks in GoG (I won't say 'writeups'), and a few more I'm sure. Certainly, with hindsight, we all wish the sale to AH had never been transacted. But, I don't think the last 10 years have been totally negative... # RuneQuest needs Greg Stafford. No offense intended to the # many who've worked on RQ since (except for Nick Atlas -- *him* I'll # gladly offend), but RQ/Glorantha needs its creator at the helm to # flourish properly. Chaosium seems to have done well for quite some # time -- maybe they could handle RQ now? RQ has never been a profitable # proposition for Avalon Hill, and it seems unlikely that it ever will # be. Yet it must have made money for Chaosium. Greg is not enthusiastic about _RuneQuest_ much anymore. He IS enthusiastic about _Glorantha_, however. _King of Sartar_ is one of the first of a set of similar products we can expect. Maybe we'll even live to see _Glorantha: The Game_ ;-) As I understand it, Stafford will continue to support RQ by: 1) writing new material, 2) advising others who are writing material, and 3) providing material to _Tales of the Reaching Moon_. But, we should not hold our collective breath on Chaosium reclaiming RQ. I've spoken to Greg about this several times, and he feels Chaosium cannot try to live in the past. I have also approached AH about buying the rights, and they have not been at all open to even discussing the matter in a professional way. The fate of the game is in the hands of guys like David Hall, who, without any real support, went and started his own RQ magazine. And Oliver Jovanovic, who has spent many hundreds of his own dollars (over $1000?) and _hundreds_ of hours of time, so that the rest of us can at least try to hammer out the next version of RQ. Are we becoming crotchety old men, stuck in the past, while other gamers go on to "third"/fouth/fifth generation games? I don't think so, because I think the core RQ _rules_ still stand up to any _rules system_ on the market. I also think that the world setting of Glorantha is the best around. I think the cyber and vampire things are fads that will pass. I really do. But there are some good, sophisticated, intelligent gamers who are playing these games instead of RQ. I just hope we loyalists can keep the flame burning until these folks 'mature out of' the games they're playing now, so they will have a RQ to discover/rediscover (presumptuous, admittedly). More on this topic when I clear off the junk on my desk. # Peter Maranci *David Cheng drcheng@sales.stern.nyu.edu / d.cheng@genie.geis.com Ask me about RuneQuest-Con! (212) 472-7752 [before midnight]  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA22856; Wed, 1 Sep 93 22:07:58 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA14055; Wed, 1 Sep 93 23:07:04 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 1 Sep 93 23:07:12 EDT From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: New addition with annoying questions. Date: Wed, 1 Sep 93 22:03:35 -0500 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <9063FC1322F@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Okay, now that I'm on the list, and I've been running a draft/playtest campaign for a few months now, I've a few questions: Are there any copies of what has been done with sorcery floating about? My draft is the second draft, and it has no sorcery rules or alterations. I had heard that there have been changes to the shaman's fetch since the second draft made it out, what are they? Are there pertinent archives for this list? All for now.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA23216; Wed, 1 Sep 93 22:22:10 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA14456; Wed, 1 Sep 93 23:21:18 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 1 Sep 93 23:21:23 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: New addition with annoying questions. Date: Wed, 1 Sep 93 23:21:08 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <9067CF74CEA@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Do people want a repost of Mike & Paul's system (actually a somewhat updated version from the last, merging with some ideas from the RQIV Draft) or shall I just send something to 'jacobus'? - Paul  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA27341; Thu, 2 Sep 93 01:53:22 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA17899; Thu, 2 Sep 93 02:52:26 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 2 Sep 93 2:52:31 EDT From: davidc@cs.uwa.edu.au (David Cake) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: RQ Magic Date: Thu, 2 Sep 93 14:51:00 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <90A01286DBA@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> I have a few questions about RQ4 magic to get people talking about RQ4 again. The first is about shamanic fetches. The RQ4d2 rules say that a shamans fetch gets two separate actions, presumably most of the time a cast spell action or two. Does anyone besides me think that this could have a really big effect on game balance, partly because all shamans effectively have an allied spirit, andpartly because there is no species max on fetch POW, and while PC shamans are unlikely to have fetchs as gross as some NPCs (like in Dorastor - Mistress Last and Babool both clock in at around 280, from memory) . Does anyone have a big problem with this - it seemed like it was put in almost as an afterthought, and it is a big change, making shamans way more combat deadly. The second is a speculative one about sorcery. With reference to Burton Cholinskis Sorcery with studies system, does anybody have objections to this in principle? There are some problems with it from a practical point of view (its very incompatible with existing sorcery), but I want to know what people think about the basic idea. The basicgame effects are to complicate sorcery for most users, but give practitioners grater flexibilty and many new abilities (some of them rather curious and many not very useful). I liked the basic idea a lot but hadproblems with the implementation, as I thought that Burtons striving for purity of implementation made it very incompatible, and was inappropriate in other parts. I also thought that it could benefit from being combined with the Paul Reilly Presence system. So I have given some thought to writing my own version with the emphasis on compatibility with existing rules and the draft version. Will I get shouted down for overcomplication? or does the idea meet with guarded approval? I like the idea, because it seems to me that it has the capability to bring a very Ars Magica like feel (or manipulating complex laws, and with the possibilty of on the spot creation of complex spells) to advanced practitioners of sorcery. SHould I present my version? Cheers Dave Cake  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA27881; Thu, 2 Sep 93 02:31:46 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA18282; Thu, 2 Sep 93 03:30:37 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 2 Sep 93 3:30:55 EDT From: davidc@cs.uwa.edu.au (David Cake) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Enough Is Enough! Date: Thu, 2 Sep 93 15:29:23 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <90AA45721BF@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > > RQLite, RQ4, RQ3, RQDiet...somewhere along the line, something > went wrong. Something got lost between all the discussion and debate -- > the essential sense of *fun* that I haven't seen much since RQ2. Well, I thought that parts of Dorastor were pretty funny. I honestly think that running Dorastor and Ralzakark with a good high powered party (lunars maybe) could be a barrel of laughs. And the same goes for much of SunCounty (Melisandes Hand particularly). Rules do not need to be intrinsically fun, they are the foundations behind your game. Maybe you are just spending too much time online :-) - I participate enthusiastically on the debate, but forget it all when I actually play. Honestly, if the debate is upsetting you, you may be in the wrong place - to enjoy participating in the rq4 playtest discussion, you must have a streak of rules lawyerness - something that I find many people who have played and run a large number of games develop, but not everybody. Some os us enjoy, at least alittle, nitpicking over the effects of various rules, and if you don't , you might just have to put up with it. > RQ2 -- now, *that* appeals to me. Am I the only one who wants to > run RQ2, read RQ2 material, and pretend that the last ten years never > happened? Certainly not, there are hidebound conservatives all over the place, and certainly a few in my neck of the woods. But I play primarily in Glorantha, and the various RQ3 products have expanded my vision of Glorantha a great deal, beyond the almost entirely Prax based campaigns people tended to run before. Think about World of Glorantha, Elder Secrets, Sun County, much of the stuff in Gods of Glorantha. These are also RQ3 products, and I enjoy running RQ more now than I did. RQ4 is in many ways more like RQ2 from a rules perspective - the Easy/Medium /Hard skills is in many ways a return to RQ2, some new skills are old skills returned. But that doesn't really matter, what I like is that RQ4 not only fixes many rules glitches and inadequacies, it also has a feel that is more in tune with Glorantha than I think any previous version. The chracter generation lets me make characters that feel Gloranthan easily, the section on Spirit Lore feels very Gloranthan, the names and descriptions of spells feel Gloranthan. I like it. > > RuneQuest needs Greg Stafford. No offense intended to the > many who've worked on RQ since (except for Nick Atlas -- *him* I'll > gladly offend), but RQ/Glorantha needs its creator at the helm to > flourish properly. Chaosium seems to have done well for quite some > time -- maybe they could handle RQ now? RQ has never been a profitable > proposition for Avalon Hill, and it seems unlikely that it ever will > be. Yet it must have made money for Chaosium. They don't want too handle it. I would certainly see Greg work on 'Glorantha : the Game ' or whatever it is called these days. I think that the real way for RQ to take off is not just a new edition and maybe RQ Lite, (though a flashy FASA style campaign to launch a new edition could help a lot), but a rekimdling of interest in Glorantha generally. And I would like to see a HeroQuest type thingy before too many years have passed. I seem to recall that there were even playtest rumous recently. > > Maybe, someday... > > Or maybe I'm just having a bad day. > > -->Pete > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Peter Maranci Malden, Massachusetts > pete@slough.mit.edu or rune@trystero.com or rune@ace.com > "Son, I am able," she said "though you scare me." "Watch," said I "Beloved," > I said, "watch me scare you though." Said she "Able am I, Son." TMBG > > Dave Cake  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA28062; Thu, 2 Sep 93 02:45:56 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA18395; Thu, 2 Sep 93 03:45:02 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 2 Sep 93 3:45:05 EDT From: davidc@cs.uwa.edu.au (David Cake) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Is the rulers the real issue Date: Thu, 2 Sep 93 15:43:44 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <90AE1906000@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > > I agree that the rules aren't the most important part of the RQ > renaissance, but they are the focus of this list. I'd prefer to see > the rules discussions stay here instead of filling up the digest, > which I'd prefer to see concentrating on Glorantha and on finished > rules ideas, rather than incomplete ideas. Yar, what he said. RQ Lite is filling up a lot of Digest space, I think that the rq4 list should be a little rules lawyers ghetto, and more Glorantha on the Daily. > > That's also why I think we can afford to spend time on this list > working out rules variants. Also, if you are against RQ Lite then just > ignore the RQ Lite postings. They're marked well enough. I think there Because many people have opinions about particular versions of RQ Lite. I kind of like the idea, but hate some of the versions that have been presented. At the moment there is not really an RQ Lite development effort, there is an RQ Lite debate about what format it should be produced in. I find some ideas for the format problematic. > keep your feelings to yourself. Participate in a positive way or not > at all. Participating positively doesn't mean agreeing with what is said, it means offering alternatives, and ways that things can be improved. > > Somebody could lose an eye... Dangerous, them flying electrons :-) > > That's enough soapbox oratory for now. I think soapbox oratory is something that you can never have enough of. :-) > whoah, > +++++++++++++++++++++++23 > Loren Miller internet: MILLERL@wharton.upenn.edu > "Science" does not remove the terror of the gods. > Dave Cake  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA00265; Thu, 2 Sep 93 05:38:12 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA20631; Thu, 2 Sep 93 06:36:53 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 2 Sep 93 6:37:24 EDT From: pvanheus@cs.uct.ac.za (Peter van Heusden) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RQ Magic Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1993 12:36:22 +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: <90DBF101B6E@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Dave writes: > The second is a speculative one about sorcery. With reference to > Burton Cholinskis Sorcery with studies system, does anybody have objections to > this in principle? There are some problems with it from a practical point of No, I actually like it. Very AM like. > view (its very incompatible with existing sorcery), but I want to know what > people think about the basic idea. The basicgame effects are > to complicate sorcery for most users, but give practitioners grater flexibilty > and many new abilities (some of them rather curious and many not very useful). I liked the basic idea a lot but hadproblems with the implementation, as I That's the direction I like. Flexibility is the heart of a good system imho.. half the fun in AM is being able to whatever you like. > thought that Burtons striving for purity of implementation made it very > incompatible, and was inappropriate in other parts. I also thought that it > could benefit from being combined with the Paul Reilly Presence system. > So I have given some thought to writing my own version with the > emphasis on compatibility with existing rules and the draft version. Will > I get shouted down for overcomplication? or does the idea meet with guarded > approval? I like the idea, because it seems to me that it has the capability to > bring a very Ars Magica like feel (or manipulating complex laws, and with the > possibilty of on the spot creation of complex spells) to advanced practitioners > of sorcery. SHould I present my version? PLEASE, send along > Cheers > Dave Cake > > 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 AA12062; Thu, 2 Sep 93 11:33:59 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA06657; Thu, 2 Sep 93 12:32:46 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 2 Sep 93 12:32:53 EDT From: burt@ptltd.com (Burton Choinski) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: SORCERY Date: Thu, 2 Sep 93 09:22:41 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <913ADA001BA@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Graeme A Lindsell Notes... %% > The second is a speculative one about sorcery. With reference to %% > Burton Choinskis Sorcery with studies system, does anybody have %% > objections to this in principle? There are some problems with it from a %% > practical point of view (its very incompatible with existing sorcery), %% > but I want to know what I liked the basic idea a lot but had problems %% > with the implementation, as I thought that Burtons striving for purity %% > of implementation made it very incompatible, and was inappropriate in %% > other parts. I also thought that it could benefit from being combined %% > with the Paul Reilly Presence system. %% %% I thought his striving for needless compatibility created certain %% flaws. :-) My original idea with it was to be as compatible with the existing Sorcery spells as possible. Going with that assumption forced certain constructions and organizations that were somewhat forced at best and a hack at worst. Given my druthers I would rather rebuild all the sorcery spells from the ground up, first by figuring out a list of what can be manipulated and a list of forms of manipulation. Once those lists were there I would have a level platform to work from. The effects of various combinations might have some RQ3 analogs, most would not. And many combinations would have little use. The tricky part is determining effect for each manipulation. Some manipulations should have a greater "cost" to use, either by decreasing the amount of what can be manipulated or by increased the mana to do so. I can see animate taking more "energy" then "form" since more work must be done. I can see sorcery taking a very logical, consistant use of magical power. Spirit and Divine need not be logical or consistant since heym you are dealing with fickle spirits or gods. :) %% Ditto about Presence, and I believe it has been suggested to Burton. %% The system may have evolved since it was last posted: would Burton like %% to comment? It was interesting, but the "presense" idea seemed too much like having a fetch. I liked the three-way difference in RQ3...the Shaman has his fetch and spirits, the Priest has his/her god and essences of his god (cult spirit spells), and the Sorcerer cuts out the middleman and just does it himself (but must put more work/mana to get the same effect). -- Burton  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA23555; Wed, 1 Sep 93 22:37:47 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA14690; Wed, 1 Sep 93 23:36:58 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 1 Sep 93 23:37:01 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: New addition with annoying questions. Date: Thu, 2 Sep 93 13:35:20 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <906BF1E62B3@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > > > Do people want a repost of Mike & Paul's system (actually a somewhat > updated version from the last, merging with some ideas from the > RQIV Draft) or shall I just send something to 'jacobus'? > > - Paul > Depends on how long it is. You could try uploading it to soda if you think it's too long to send out, but this list puts out 100's of k of text a week anyway. I'd like to see how your ideas have evolved. 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 AA24208; Wed, 1 Sep 93 23:09:25 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA15375; Thu, 2 Sep 93 00:08:27 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 2 Sep 93 0:08:32 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: that ol' RQ Lite thingy again Date: Thu, 2 Sep 93 14:06:45 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <90745752BA1@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Graeme replying to David, lots deleted. > > I think that this could almost not be necesary with a well designed RQ Lite, > just ignore the spells that mean little to you (like Enchanting spells, and > Bless Crops), and you do not need the hit location chart, just use the HP total, > maybe one or two lines of simply calculated stats. > Yes, thats what I meant: the RQLite stuff shouldn't have to be more than one or two lines of extra data with each NPC. > I thought that Ken said that RQ4 was 'in limbo', not dead, and that that it > could well appear in some form, such as a companion. I am personally more > interested in better game systems that just simpler ones, and that was what > I thought the RQ4 effort was about. Agreed. To me RQLite - the base beginners unit - is irrelevant: as a long time player I would want a complete set. There is one part where better = simpler for me, and that's combat. There are many fights that take up most of a playing session for our group, and while that can be fun for a climactic battle, it can be tedious in other fights. > Many games companys live from supplement to supplement, like Steve > Jackson Games, AH and Chaosium are both doing better than that. Glorantha is > definately not about to disappear, and I strongly doubt that RQ is going to > either. The worst that can happen is for AH to not renew their RQ license, and give it back to Chaosium. Speaking of which: how much does/did AH pay for RQ. Does anyone outside the companies know. One thing about AH: have they ever had a successful RPG? Nothing I've seen really seems a huge success. I don't think they have marketed any of their RPG's well: they have performed the Cardinal Mistake - all of their RPG products are shrink-wrapped. I'm quite serious here, if I can't see a new rules system before I buy it, I don't buy it since I don't have that much disposable income. Most other RPGs tend to be published as books (at least the rules are) that prospective buyers can browse though on the store shelves. > > Cheers > > > Dave Cake Same here 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 AA05771; Thu, 2 Sep 93 17:08:21 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA21919; Thu, 2 Sep 93 18:07:14 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 2 Sep 93 18:07:33 EDT From: David Dunham (via RadioMail) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RQ4 Thoughts Rants and Ravings Date: Thu, 02 Sep 1993 15:06:52 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <9194062222D@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) > On the plus side, the complete spirit magic and rune magic systems >are included with some sample cults. A base RQLite could include >both, with a bit more space if we leave out Rune Lords and/or Shamans. I think it's important to leave Rune Lords in the game. Why? Because it's important that the game have a goal. RQ2 was "about" attaining a rune. This is more than just getting more power (tho that's the simple way of looking at it), it's establishing your place in the order of Glorantha. Becoming a Rune Lord was a goal of all of my RQ2 characters (tho none of them ever made it, and only one came anywhere close). >ii) I've introduced a couple of people to non-D&D RPG's, and >I've noticed that most D&D players liked Warhammer Fantasy >Roleplay. It had a nice simple combat system and a character >advancement system that bore some resemblance to character >classes. Another thing that impressed them was that it was a >large book (around 300 pages I think) with a lot of detail >and flash illustration and a good deal of world background. >Come to think of it, FASA's EarthDawn looks a lot like the >base WFRP product. Of course, so did Dangerous Journeys. Warhammer Fantasy has always annoyed me because it seemed like the basic game was split into two sections in the same book (finding character classes seemed something only the GM could do). Obviously, this is a potential problem with RQ-Lite, but that's why the complex optional rules should be in a separate volume, which I think would be less annoying. (They'd also be optional, rather than merely high-level -- having to buy a second book to become a Rune Lord would annoy me more than having to buy a second book to get rules for (say) hit locations or shamans (which are typically NPCs).) >From: davidc@cs.uwa.edu.au (David Cake) >to enjoy participating in the rq4 playtest discussion, you must have >a streak of rules lawyerness I'm here so I don't _have_ to be a rules lawyer.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA29342; Thu, 2 Sep 93 04:14:27 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA19455; Thu, 2 Sep 93 05:13:36 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 2 Sep 93 5:13:39 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RQ Magic Date: Thu, 2 Sep 93 18:56:57 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <90C5BE33A3E@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > > I have a few questions about RQ4 magic to get people talking about > RQ4 again. > The first is about shamanic fetches. The RQ4d2 rules say that a > shamans fetch gets two separate actions, presumably most of the time a I always thought RQ3 fetches were capable of independent action: given the rest of their abilities it seemed natural that they were. After all, they are meant to be an independent part of a shamans mind > . Does anyone have a big problem with this - it seemed like it was put in > almost as an afterthought, and it is a big change, making shamans way more > combat deadly. > The second is a speculative one about sorcery. With reference to > Burton Choinskis Sorcery with studies system, does anybody have objections to > this in principle? There are some problems with it from a practical point of > view (its very incompatible with existing sorcery), but I want to know what This is not a great concern to me: a skill conversion system could be provided. I have a considerable dislike of the 1 spell = 1 skill system as it tends to produce "1 spell charlies" - sorcerers with a few spells and no "real world" justifications for having them, very D&D-like pure damage machines. RQ3 sorcery was very innovative 10 years ago, but is now quite out of date as a magic system (though not as much as the archaic rune magic system). I think that if the effort is made to produce RQ4, an effort should be made to improve on past mistakes, not sacrifice the game to "RQ3 compatibility" > I liked the basic idea a lot but hadproblems with the implementation, as I > thought that Burtons striving for purity of implementation made it very > incompatible, and was inappropriate in other parts. I also thought that it > could benefit from being combined with the Paul Reilly Presence system. I thought his striving for needless compatibility created certain flaws. :-) Ditto about Presence, and I believe it has been suggested to Burton. The system may have evolved since it was last posted: would Burton like to comment? > So I have given some thought to writing my own version with the > emphasis on compatibility with existing rules and the draft version. Will > Go ahead, this list can always use new ideas and/or better implementations of old ones. 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 AA29513; Thu, 2 Sep 93 04:38:18 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA19709; Thu, 2 Sep 93 05:37:27 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 2 Sep 93 5:37:31 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: RQ4 Thoughts, Rants and Ravings Date: Thu, 2 Sep 93 19:35:56 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <90CC1E46628@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Some Thoughts on RQ4 Considering RQLite and the RQ4 basic rules to be the same thing (which they could be) a few thoughts: i) Say the basic book should be around 120 pages softback. It could (but doesn't have to) contain: Character generation. A combat system with a description of combat skills. A full spirit magic system. Non-Combat skills, and skill and stat training. A full description of Rune Magic. Three short cult write-ups (say Orlanth, Kyger Litor and Black Fang) 18 or so pages of short descriptions of monsters. Perhaps a short section on treasure A few appendices with optional rules. Scattered throughout can be some Gloranthan background, mainly about Dragon Pass. Yes, that's the contents of the base RQ2 book. Looking at that book, it has a few problems: the treasure stuff is out of date as part of an RPG, the combat and other skills are separated, the prior experience section is in an appendix, and there is no short adventure, as is the custom these days. On the plus side, the complete spirit magic and rune magic systems are included with some sample cults. A base RQLite could include both, with a bit more space if we leave out Rune Lords and/or Shamans. Most (Gloranthan) characters get their spirit spells from priest's spellteaching, and there are few RQ3 PC shamans: I believe shamans can be left until "Magic of Glorantha" (sorcerers as well). Rune Lords are a bit different - there are a lot of PC Rune Lords - but GoG ended up reducing the total number of cults with Lords by quite a bit. Most of those that do only have rune lords (ie Humakt, Chalana Arroy), and can be given as priests of cults with different entry requirements. This would allow players to play characters from the most common backgrounds (civilized and barbarian) from the basic book and to see the direction the character needs for cult advancement. The combat is hardly sophisticated: it allows most of the basic actions but not most of the special options of RQ3. I brought up the RQ2 book because it was the most successful implementation of RQ. Greg Stafford would probably say we're living in the past. ii) I've introduced a couple of people to non-D&D RPG's, and I've noticed that most D&D players liked Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay. It had a nice simple combat system and a character advancement system that bore some resemblance to character classes. Another thing that impressed them was that it was a large book (around 300 pages I think) with a lot of detail and flash illustration and a good deal of world background. Come to think of it, FASA's EarthDawn looks a lot like the base WFRP product. Of course, so did Dangerous Journeys. What I'd like RQ4 (and RQLite) to be: Looking at WFRP, which was pretty successful before GW decided to pull out of all non-minatures games, I don't think new players are put off by large books. It gives a feeling that you are buying something substantial. I'd like to see RQ4 produced in the same format, as I think was planned. I think the "programmed instruction" idea could be used for the starting player as someone suggested: the book could have an initial short adventure with the sections needed for that adventure (the RQLite sections?) marked with a separate backgound colour. The Lite/starter sections would be Quick Character Creation, Quick Combat and Spirit Magic - sections that more experienced GM's might want to use themselves if they like Liter rules. The rest of the book would have the entirety of the RQ4 project, with all of the optional rules and all the sorcery rules as well, and finishing with a chunk of Gloranthan background. Well, that's what I'd like to see. I hope I don't need to use hallucinogenic drugs to do it. Air gets a bit thin up on this soapbox... 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 AA19512; Fri, 3 Sep 93 00:16:44 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA00641; Fri, 3 Sep 93 01:15:49 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 3 Sep 93 1:15:57 EDT From: Michael W Ryan To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: RQ4 Query Date: Fri, 3 Sep 93 0:16:41 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <92065BB5559@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Alot of what's being said here sounds interesting, but unfortunately, being new to the list, I sort of get lost in some of the references. Does the RQ4 material exist somewhere on an FTPable archive site? If so, can someone supply me with the address and path? I'd really like to take a look at it. Someone mentioned (I deleted the article already, and don't remember the person's name) that they considered the rune spells in RQ2&3 to be "archaic". Could you possibly expand on that a bit? Are you referring to the mechanics of the spells or the spells themselves? I'll stop here until I get a bit more caught up on what's going on here. +=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+ | Michael W. Ryan | If the dream is big enough, -- John Antony, | | mryan@pacs.pha.pa.us | the facts don't matter. Entrepreneur | +=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA25196; Fri, 3 Sep 93 04:22:25 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA03650; Fri, 3 Sep 93 05:21:24 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 3 Sep 93 5:21:37 EDT From: Mystic Musk Ox To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Improve() + Bargain Date: Fri, 3 Sep 93 10:13 BST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <9247E551B14@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Roderick Robertson: > I'd say that Improve(Skill) generally adds 15% to the skill, with >some exceptions: Bladesharp takes 10% and turns it into 1 point of >damage, Healsharp turns 10% into one point of Damage healed, >Parrysharp might take that 10% and turn it into two points of Armor >(only on the parrying weapon), etc. This could also open the way for >Improve Attack, which adds 15% to your attack skill, but no extra >damage. Also remember the reverse spells, like Dullblade, which >Subtract from the target's skill. Howabout Dullheal, which makes an >opponent's Medic more likely to blow his roll? I'm not keen on the idea of 15% increases across the board - after all, this makes a 6 point spell add 90% to a skill. Perhaps a skill cannot be more than doubled by use of these spells, if 15% is the multiple? >(NB. I used -Sharp and Dull- only to suggest similarities in how the >spell works. I think most of the spells above are named horribly, and >do not suggest that those be the real names). Agreed! > What about non-physical skills? would there be Improve (Read >Lunar)? Improve (World Lore)? Yes, I was assuming Lores would improve, due to the spells acting like a 'limited divination' , or in contact with cult spirits. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Combat Matrix - I was recently playing around with WORD on my PC, and ran up what I think is a fairly neat combat matrix, ie it cross-indexes attack levels with parry levels and gives the info about what damage is done, weapons damage etc (using the RQ4 crit/specials). Does anyone else want it? (Its in PostScript, about 30K worth). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Bargain Skill. My campaign is about to move into a largeish city that is basically a trading centre. I was reading through the Bargain description, but basically felt unhappy with it, mostly because it doesn't take into account the fact that the other guy might have Bargain skill too... So, after a bit of fiddling about, we came up with a simple suggestion for all those useful cases where points are being argued etc... You need: A track of 11 boxes in a row, 2 counters. Bargain: Both parties decide on their initial price (presumably high for seller, low for buyer). This has to be somewhere reasonable, else no-one would be trading in the first place, although could be modified by scarcity, desperateness of buyer etc, etc. Take the difference, divide by 10, allocate low price to one end, high to the other, increments of 1/10th in between. Counters start at each end, one for each bargainer. Both roll their skill, effect is: Critical: move opponents counter 3 spaces towards your end Special: move opponents counter 2 spaces Normal: move opponents counter 1 space Fail: no move Fumble: move your counter 1 space towards the opponent Thus a counter could move 4 spaces in 1 round (Critical + Fumble) When the counters end up in the same space, that is the agreed price. If the counters cross, the price is determined by ratios of move. (we originally tried 'attack' and 'parry' rolls, but figured that this didn't really add anything extra, except a lot of dice rolls) Orate,Debate: Allocate a result to either end of the track. Counter starts in the centre box. Orator rolls skill, moves counter as above (3,2,1,0 or -1 spaces) to desired end of track. opponents roll, they move as desired. When the counter reaches the end of a track, end of debate. Skilled opposing Orators may go on for a long time! Give an amount of time eg 5 mins, 1 hour etc to each pair of rolls. Modifiers: to skill, start position of counter etc. Optional: For multiple Orators, use a hex grid, and a hexagonal board. Corners are chosen by the orators etc, with a counter starting in the centre (or offset to represent initial prejudice). Each contestant rolling may move the counter. Once counter enters a contestants corner, the argument has been won by that faction.(I haven't tried this version yet) --------------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Buckley ---------------------------------------------------------------------  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA26681; Fri, 3 Sep 93 05:10:48 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA03668; Fri, 3 Sep 93 05:23:08 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 3 Sep 93 5:23:22 EDT From: Malcolm Cohen To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Some RQ Lite ideas Date: Fri, 3 Sep 93 10:22:17 MET Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <924856A47D9@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Joerg writes: > Well, the way I see it there is a problem that demands one success > level higher than usual. Some guy take it as routine nevertheless, some That is one approach, not necessarily the correct one. [...] > The problem with this philosophy is that RQ know only [...] > where I'd like to see [huge table...] > Yes, that means even more calculation, or looking up in a table for REACTION: --------- Ugh. I do not think this solves the problem at all, and is too complicated. Including both additive steps and multiplicative steps is neither simple nor elegant. Why does it not solve the problem? Because many modifiers to skill usage are small (e.g. hit with missile when target is moving, -10%), if we make the steps in the table small enough to handle all of these it will be a big complicated table ("I got a partial-semi-special success, do I hit it?" "No, it got a super-normal dodge, so it is only a glancing blow"). DISCUSSION: ----------- Currently we have two kinds of skill modification: (a) multipliers (e.g. for using bow at long range) (b) additive/subtractive (e.g. striking from high ground). Both of these approaches would seem to have good real-world analogues. (e.g. for a 20% bow user, a moving target probably would halve their hit chance, whereas for an experienced bow user, say 90%, it only doubles their chance of missing). Currently, for modifiers which are not listed in the rules, the GM decides which type to use (they are making up the value after all, they can make up how to apply it as well). Whichever of these is used, we need to have a way of deciding (perhaps after a set number of tries) that the problem is "too hard" for the user at this time. WTP: ---- If the perceived problem is that it is too "complicated" to have 2 different styles of modifier, I am in favour of keeping the additive ones. Why? (a) compatibility with RQ3 (the attack modifiers are the most visible ones, and they are additive. (b) finer-grained adjustment is possible (+10 vs +20 vs +30, etc.). (c) addition is simpler than multiplication by the numbers needed to get reasonable modifiers (e.g. x1.25, x1.5, x1.75, x0.75) (d) AD&D folk understand about adding ("+1 to hit"...ok, only joking). ROLLING FUMBLES and CRITICALS: ------------------------------ The easy way of doing away with the table for <=100% skills (and the method I used way back in RQ1!) is to say roll 01-05 success + roll again, second roll succeeds => success is critical 96-00 fail + roll again, second roll fails => fumble Of course in RQ1 there were no specials (except for impales...) so a reroll was only necessary 1 roll in 10 for everything except spear (et al) attack, for which reroll 1 in 4. Since most RQ combats are over in 10 rounds, each player need only reroll (have a chance of a crit or fumble) twice (one attack, one parry) in the whole melee. Even for impalers, the rerolls in a 12 round melee are only 3 attack and 1 parry. (Those who say that RQ combats take all evening can refrain from saying this is too much right now - I mean hey, each player only makes 1 extra die roll per hour). Perhaps this is not "faster" than using a table, but it certainly requires less mental effort than (subtracting one (?) and multiplying by 20). It also has no rounding error at all, in fact no rounding - if you have a skill of 30% you get a critical chance of 1.5%, not 1% (crit chance for 29%) and not 2% (crit chance for 30%). Eliminates the breakpoint effect. Admittedly this method is less attractive in RQ3 (or in RQ2 if the optional slash et al rules are used) since special success mostly means something. Actually, when I run combats (in RQ3+) the skill result table is right in front of me so it is not exactly difficult to look up the occasional result for specialness/etc. In fact I see this as a big non-problem. -- ...........................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 AA10080; Thu, 2 Sep 93 19:44:28 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25842; Thu, 2 Sep 93 20:43:35 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 2 Sep 93 20:43:42 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RQ4 Thoughts Rants and Ravings Date: Fri, 3 Sep 93 10:41:39 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <91BDBE878D6@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > > I think it's important to leave Rune Lords in the game. Why? Because it's > important that the game have a goal. RQ2 was "about" attaining a rune. This > is more than just getting more power (tho that's the simple way of looking > at it), it's establishing your place in the order of Glorantha. Becoming a > Rune Lord was a goal of all of my RQ2 characters (tho none of them ever > made it, and only one came anywhere close). That's what RQ2 was about, I agree. Now there are a lot of cults that don't have Rune Lord status, and most of those that do have priest powers as well (ie re-usable rune magic). > > Warhammer Fantasy has always annoyed me because it seemed like the basic > game was split into two sections in the same book (finding character > classes seemed something only the GM could do). Obviously, this is a > potential problem with RQ-Lite, but that's why the complex optional rules > should be in a separate volume, which I think would be less annoying. > (They'd also be optional, rather than merely high-level -- having to buy a > second book to become a Rune Lord would annoy me more than having to buy a > second book to get rules for (say) hit locations or shamans (which are > typically NPCs).) I have separate RQ Lite and RQ Advanced right now: I have the Games Workshop edition of RQIII in hardback books, one is the Standard Edition and the other is rest of the deluxe edition. As a result, the combat system is broken up between two books and I need to look between both of them to find something. Even with its multiple typos and weird division of character creation WFRP is superior in layout and utility. If RQLite and RQ advanced are divided either people would need to switch between books or material would be repeated in both books. There is also economies of scale in producing one single large volume rather than two separate books. 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 AA15760; Thu, 2 Sep 93 22:00:03 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA28468; Thu, 2 Sep 93 22:59:11 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 2 Sep 93 22:59:18 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: SORCERY Date: Fri, 3 Sep 93 12:57:11 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <91E1EA56E21@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Burton writes: > Given my druthers I would rather rebuild all the sorcery spells from the > ground up, first by figuring out a list of what can be manipulated > and a list of forms of manipulation. Once those lists were there I would > have a level platform to work from. The effects of various combinations > might have some RQ3 analogs, most would not. And many combinations would > have little use. I like that approach (obvious from my previous posts). I've always thought the RQ3 sorcery spell lists looked a little like a hack job. Only a few spells seem to have had real thought put into them. > I can see animate taking more "energy" then "form" since more work must > be done. I can see sorcery taking a very logical, consistant use of > magical power. Spirit and Divine need not be logical or consistant since > heym you are dealing with fickle spirits or gods. :) A bit more consistency would be good there as well (the Improve (skill) spell is an effort in that direction). In some ways the "new cult in every pack" was a bit like AD&D's "new monster in every module", and had the same effect. > > %% Ditto about Presence, and I believe it has been suggested to Burton. > %% The system may have evolved since it was last posted: would Burton like > %% to comment? > > It was interesting, but the "presense" idea seemed too much like having a > fetch. I liked the three-way difference in RQ3...the Shaman has his > fetch and spirits, the Priest has his/her god and essences of his god > (cult spirit spells), and the Sorcerer cuts out the middleman and just does > it himself (but must put more work/mana to get the same effect). > -- Burton > IMO there are two advantages to the presence/twin concept. One is the gameplay one: the sorcerer doesn't have to keep track of the durations of a number of spells, he just turns them off when not needed. I've always liked the idea of long duration spells, and the presence idea removes the most abusive aspects. The other advantage is the conceptual one, which you seem to dislike. This is a matter of taste I suppose, but I like the idea of unifying the magic users: they each expand their spirit/pow beyond the limits of the normal human soul, but with limitations. The shaman goes the "natural way" but ends up a bit insane and needs the support of others to survive; the priestess uses a god to control her twin but thereby loses control over it and can only contact it through worship; the sorcerer binds it to himself and has the most power over it but then needs to have the knowledge to control it. (this also has the bonus of controlling abuses such as sorcerer-shamans which munchkins adore but makes it difficult to explain priest-shamans). 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 AA21653; Fri, 3 Sep 93 14:51:04 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA28097; Fri, 3 Sep 93 15:49:48 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 3 Sep 93 15:50:10 EDT From: David Dunham (via RadioMail) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Rune Lords; GW's RQ-Heavy; Sorcery Date: Fri, 03 Sep 1993 12:49:25 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <92EF6EB7E6C@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) >> I think it's important to leave Rune Lords in the game. Why? Because it's >> important that the game have a goal. RQ2 was "about" attaining a rune. > That's what RQ2 was about, I agree. Now there are a lot of cults that >don't have Rune Lord status, and most of those that do have priest powers >as well (ie re-usable rune magic). Sorry for the confusion. The goal is obtaining a rune. RQ2 had two ways to do this, and both are equally important (Rune Lord perhaps more so, since becoming a Priest tends to give non-adventuring responsibilities). Unlike sorcerers or shamans, the rules for Rune Lords are quite short, and you wouldn't gain much by summarizing them instead. > I have separate RQ Lite and RQ Advanced right now: I have the Games >Workshop edition of RQIII in hardback books, one is the Standard Edition >and the other is rest of the deluxe edition. As a result, the combat >system is broken up between two books and I need to look between both of >them to find something. Even with its multiple typos and weird division >of character creation WFRP is superior in layout and utility. If RQLite >and RQ advanced are divided either people would need to switch between >books or material would be repeated in both books. There is also >economies of scale in producing one single large volume rather than >two separate books. Ah, I'd forgotten the GW version. I only have "Advanced RuneQuest," but judging from what's in there, you have a point. I do believe that if the product had been intended to be split, they could have done a better job. And in this case, it looks like a GM truly can't run RQ without ARQ. > Graeme Lindsell a.k.a gal502@huxley.anu.edu.au > IMO there are two advantages to the presence/twin concept. One is the >gameplay one: the sorcerer doesn't have to keep track of the durations >of a number of spells, he just turns them off when not needed. I've >always liked the idea of long duration spells, and the presence idea >removes the most abusive aspects. This sounds interesting -- these rules I must have missed by joining late? Can the author email them? >From: Mystic Musk Ox >Bargain Skill. >[counter-based rules] This looks quite reasonable, albeit slow. It looks like the perfect sort of thing for a Rules Companion -- RQ-Lite would have the standard Bargain, then you'd offer more detail for those that need it. And the system could conceivably be used for other contests, not just Bargain or Orate (e.g. running, swimming, etc.). >From: Malcolm Cohen >[multiplicative vs additive modifiers] >If the perceived problem is that it is too "complicated" to have 2 different >styles of modifier, I am in favour of keeping the additive ones. I agree -- it's much faster for most people to add than to multiply.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA21014; Fri, 3 Sep 93 01:20:09 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01508; Fri, 3 Sep 93 02:19:16 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 3 Sep 93 2:19:23 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RQ4 Query Date: Fri, 3 Sep 93 16:17:13 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <921748353B3@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > Michael Ryan writes: > Someone mentioned (I deleted the article already, and don't remember > the person's name) that they considered the rune spells in RQ2&3 to be > "archaic". Could you possibly expand on that a bit? Are you referring > to the mechanics of the spells or the spells themselves? I was referring to the mechanics of recovering rune magic: going bock to the temple and praying for 1 day per spell. It's very much like going down into the dungeon and casting all your spells and then going out to you magic book and learning all your spells and then going down into the dungeon... ie Archaic = AD&D. The actual spells themselves are usually OK. My other main bitch about rune magic is how initiates are treated: I think one-use rune magic is a joke. (Everyone else has heard this opinion many times by now but your new to the list) "River of Cradles" has an interesting twist on rune magic: to regain the rune spells in their matrices the PC's have to attend one (1) sucessfull worship ceremony for their god. My GM and I think this is a better method for regaining spells. We also posted a proposal here a few months ago suggesting that initiates could regain their rune magic at the worship ceremony on the yearly high holy day of their god, when their contact with said god would be at its closest. 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 AA06720; Fri, 3 Sep 93 23:05:16 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA10037; Sat, 4 Sep 93 00:04:21 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 4 Sep 93 0:04:28 EDT From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Game "generations" and mindless meandering Date: Fri, 3 Sep 93 23:04:10 -0500 Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <9373642691E@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu> Okay, Dave mentioned the threat of RuneQuest being left behind by "higher generation" games (and his