Babyl Options: Append:1 Version:5 Reformat-Headers-P Summary-Window-Format: Use Default  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.20/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA04429; Mon, 3 Jan 94 01:55:07 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA12729; Mon, 3 Jan 94 02:51:36 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 3 Jan 94 2:51:13 EDT From: Henk.Langeveld@Holland.Sun.COM (Henk Langeveld - Sun Nederland) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RQ Niche Date: Mon, 3 Jan 94 08:52:05 +0100 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <441864B15D3@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David Dunham: >I think >RQ is the game of Glorantha >begs the question. It may indeed be what the game is, but it's probably not >a good marketing direction, because it doesn't tell the consumer anything. And people still use RuneQuest for non-Gloranthan campaigns... -- Henk | Henk.Langeveld@Sun.COM - Disclaimer: I don't speak for Sun. oK[] | My first law of computing: "NEVER make assumptions"  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.20/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA04817; Mon, 3 Jan 94 02:16:48 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA12918; Mon, 3 Jan 94 03:15:02 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 3 Jan 94 3:12:54 EDT From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RQ Niche Date: Mon, 03 Jan 1994 00:14:43 PST 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" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <441EA3702FC@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >And people still use RuneQuest for non-Gloranthan >campaigns... Some people use RuneQuest for non-mythic campaigns, too (the Celtic campaign a local GM runs hasn't had any mythical components I could detect). The point isn't to come up with an all-encompassing definition for RuneQuest, but to provide a "high concept" marketing hook. David Dunham * Software Designer * Pensee Corporation Voice/Fax: 206 783 7404 * AppleLink: DDUNHAM * Internet: ddunham@radiomail.net "I say we should listen to the customers and give them what they want." "What they want is better products for free." --Scott Adams  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.21/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA00796; Tue, 4 Jan 94 08:11:21 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA05037; Tue, 4 Jan 94 09:09:06 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 4 Jan 94 9:11:24 EDT From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Designing & Rescuing Magic Systems Date: Tue, 4 Jan 1994 06:07:17 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <45FD0F36362@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> In whatever forms of magic Runequest 4 plumps for I think there should be guidelines and discussions on how a particular type of magic could be derived from another. Part of this should include a re-unification of the magic system. And Joerg Baumgartner responded: >Do you mean from cultural viewpoints ("sorcery is shamanism in scientific >terms"), a meta system, or cross overs? Battle Magic and Rune Magic should be revived and the abilities of Priests, Shamans and Sorcerers described in a consistent, and clear, manner. This is the driving force for any meta system I would advise. For the abilities of Shaman depend on the nature of Spirits and the activities of the Sorcerer are tied to a person's ability to exploit magic without the intercession of a Rune Cult. Just as the power ecomony needs to be described so does the ecology of Spirits along with their derivation from their living counterparts. In addition if the corner stones of the magic system are explained then the GM can determine how magic might vary from place to place, taking into account social reasons that might determine which magical approach is more dominent. Regards -- Guy Robinson --  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.21/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA04775; Tue, 4 Jan 94 09:33:05 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA08151; Tue, 4 Jan 94 10:31:06 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 4 Jan 94 10:33:06 EDT From: David Cake To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Current draft Date: Tue, 4 Jan 94 23:29:47 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <4612D3056BC@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > I lean towards Gloranthan material, not so much because I prefer Glorantha, > but because (other than art) I have come to expect that Gloranthan RQ > material is of higher quality than non-Gloranthan. > Actually, I would just say that Chaosium produced stuff is higher quality than Avalon Hill produced. I think that the RQ Earth stuff was good quality, which I think was Chaosium produced, and the AH stuff (including the obviously intended to be Gloranthan Eldarad) was bad. But then again I didn't like griffon Island, which was Chaosium. Gloranthan stuff does seem to sell better. > ># position is to get reviews in the magazines and get some hype going so > ># the game store owners will feature it. Heck, with reviews and hype US > ># shops might even *order* copies of adventures so that consumers don't > ># have to special-order all their RQ material, as they do now. > > > >Like I've said before, Jack Dott has to hear more stories like this. > >I've brought it to his attention, and he just ~doesn't believe~ that > >an AH product isn't available on the shelves... > > It is absolutely true, in Seattle I've had to go to multiple game stores to > find stuff and even then have had trouble. RuneQuest just isn't carried > enthusiastically. You tend to find stuff like the boxed character sheets, > and not much else. > Australia must be special, the game stores here actually have great problems getting enough stuff from the distributors, which causes ocassional shortages, but they all stock as much as they can. I think the distributors have trouble because it sells well in the Eastern states (where they enter Australia), and so they sell most of their stock there. Cheers, Dave > David Dunham * Software Designer * Pensee Corporation > Voice/Fax: 206 783 7404 * AppleLink: DDUNHAM * Internet: ddunham@radiomail.net > "I say we should listen to the customers and give them what they want." > "What they want is better products for free." --Scott Adams > >  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.21/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA08604; Tue, 4 Jan 94 10:25:50 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA11212; Tue, 4 Jan 94 11:23:42 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 4 Jan 94 11:25:39 EDT From: "Loren J. Miller" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Current draft Date: 04 Jan 1994 11:21:18 -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: <4620FC55BF6@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David Cake writes: > Actually, I would just say that Chaosium produced stuff is higher quality than > Avalon Hill produced. Up until the recent stuff I'd say you were right. But I think that the RQ Renaissance stuff stands up to the Chaosium produced stuff pretty well. Anyway, I think that it's quite possible for RQ products to be great no matter where they are set. The problem was in the editing and in AH and Chaosium's committment to RQ and its settings, which was not enough. You just can't fairly compare a RQ module edited by Nick Atlas to one that Ken Rolston and/or Sandy Petersen and/or Greg Stafford revised and edited. It's like comparing a chicken to a greyhound. whoah, +++++++++++++++++++++++23 Loren Miller internet: MILLERL@wharton.upenn.edu "Enough sound bites. Let's get to work." -- Ross Perot sound bite  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.21/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA10517; Tue, 4 Jan 94 10:51:42 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA12520; Tue, 4 Jan 94 11:49:44 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 4 Jan 94 11:51:38 EDT From: "Loren J. Miller" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Designing & Rescuing Magic Systems Date: 04 Jan 1994 11:47:04 -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: <4627E4A79E4@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com writes: > In whatever forms of magic Runequest 4 plumps for I think there should be > guidelines and discussions on how a particular type of magic could be derived > from another. Part of this should include a re-unification of the magic > system. I think I agree with the premise, which is that an overall theory of magic would be nice. But when I asked for it previously I was told that the overall theory of magic is that "An expenditure of Power or Magic Points can produce changes in the world in accord with the will of the magician." That's nice... I guess what I was looking for was more of a meta-system (in the same sense that the Hero System has a meta-system for the design of powers) which will allow us to design magic systems and magic effects and fairly determine the MP or POW costs and casting times of that magic. Is this what you want too, Guy? Anyway, you're off-base talking about a re-unification of the magic system. There was never a unified magic system in RQ. Actually, prior to sorcery and dragon-magic in RQ3 there was no official magic system at all outside the theists of central Genertela. If people needed another magic system for RQ they would take spell lists from some other game and assign MP costs to the spell levels. That was about as complicated as it got. Actually, that worked pretty well. Better, IMHO, than RQ3 Sorcery. > Battle Magic and Rune Magic should be revived and the abilities of Priests, > Shamans and Sorcerers described in a consistent, and clear, manner. We already have Battle Magic and Rune Magic. They're simply other names for Spirit Magic and Divine Magic. I agree with the rest of your point which is that an understand of the ecology of the spirit plane and the rest of the magical worlds is necessary to understanding how magic works on glorantha, but I'm not sure if we'd go about it the same way. Could you give us an example of how you would start to do this and unify RQ magic? whoah, +++++++++++++++++++++++23 Loren Miller internet: MILLERL@wharton.upenn.edu "Enough sound bites. Let's get to work." -- Ross Perot sound bite  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.21/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA19750; Tue, 4 Jan 94 13:30:50 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA19811; Tue, 4 Jan 94 14:28:01 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 4 Jan 94 14:30:46 EDT From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Designing & Rescuing Magic Systems Date: Tue, 04 Jan 1994 11:27:48 PST 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" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <46522763FDA@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >In whatever forms of magic Runequest 4 plumps for I think there should be >guidelines and discussions on how a particular type of magic could be derived >from another. Part of this should include a re-unification of the magic >system. I disagree with the importance of this. It's not something I've ever felt the need for (hey, magic is magic, it doesn't have to make complete sense), and (in my opinion) RQ4 is supposed to be a simple introduction to Glorantha. Meta-systems may help GMs in the long run, but they aren't going to get people playing and enjoying the game. (Aside: in Glorantha, I wouldn't be surprised if magic systems _don't_ derive from each other. It's a magical enough place there could easily be any number of independently-invented approaches.) >Battle Magic and Rune Magic should be revived You mean bring the terms back? They're a little more colorful, I agree. More important in conveying the feel of Glorantha would probably be to include _non_-Battle Magic, like Hammering Magic or Sheep Herding Magic or Sheaf Preserving Magic... David Dunham * Software Designer * Pensee Corporation Voice/Fax: 206 783 7404 * AppleLink: DDUNHAM * Internet: ddunham@radiomail.net "I say we should listen to the customers and give them what they want." "What they want is better products for free." --Scott Adams  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.21/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA03351; Tue, 4 Jan 94 23:48:21 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA06535; Wed, 5 Jan 94 00:46:24 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 5 Jan 94 0:48:27 EDT From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: RQ promotion Date: Tue, 04 Jan 1994 21:46:01 PST 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" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <46F70C15E89@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Here's information on something I proposed Avalon Hill do (Steve Jackson Games is already doing it): >>>If you write an article for a non-SJG periodical (like 'Dragon', e.g.) which >>>is about an SJG product (e.g. "How to Make Your GURPS Campaign More Heroic," >>>or "More Magic Items with GURPS Conversions"), then SJG will pay you the >>>same amount of money that the magazine paid you as a 'reward' for promoting >>>SJG games in other publications. This excludes reviews. When this policy >>>took effect, SJG doubled its pay for articles for it's inhouse >>>publications.<<< David Dunham * Software Designer * Pensee Corporation Voice/Fax: 206 783 7404 * AppleLink: DDUNHAM * Internet: ddunham@radiomail.net "I say we should listen to the customers and give them what they want." "What they want is better products for free." --Scott Adams  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.21/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA06404; Thu, 6 Jan 94 03:07:48 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA00938; Thu, 6 Jan 94 04:06:02 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 6 Jan 94 4:07:53 EDT From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Designing & Rescuing Magic Systems Date: Wed, 05 Jan 1994 09:18:14 MEZ Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <48AC5B244E2@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Guy Robinson writes: [Me:] >>Do you mean from cultural viewpoints ("sorcery is shamanism in scientific >>terms"), a meta system, or cross overs? > Battle Magic and Rune Magic should be revived and the abilities of Priests, > Shamans and Sorcerers described in a consistent, and clear, manner. Including the common ability to discorporate via RQ2 runespell? Would you define Battle Magic as different from Spirit Magic? And what about Stygian Malkioni wizards, or Godunya priests? > This is the driving force for any meta system I would advise. For the > abilities of Shaman depend on the nature of Spirits and the activities > of the Sorcerer are tied to a person's ability to exploit magic > without the intercession of a Rune Cult. This still leaves open the question of Stygian sorcery, the (as I have come to think) most common form of sorcery on Glorantha. Also the shamanistic elements in certain cults (like the ancestor cults of Aldrya, Kyger Litor, or Pentian Yelm). Places like Ramalia and Tastolar might even have a combination of Hsunchen shamanism and Invisible God worship. > Just as the power ecomony needs to be described so does the ecology of > Spirits along with their derivation from their living counterparts. I agree, but I remember ittle agreement about the spirit plane ecology when we discussed it a while ago. > In addition if the corner stones of the magic system are explained then > the GM can determine how magic might vary from place to place, taking > into account social reasons that might determine which magical approach > is more dominent. I'd like to see the magic systems on Glorantha mapped one day, as well as an updated version of the Prosopaedia. With these tools a GM would have an idea which version of magic to use in whch area of Glorantha. And why say one aproach is more dominant than the other? I see them more as gradualy merging the same way the nations do (or not merging, where the nations don't). -- Joerg Baumgartner rq4@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.21/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA18862; Wed, 5 Jan 94 08:09:32 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA17376; Wed, 5 Jan 94 09:07:31 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 5 Jan 94 9:09:32 EDT From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Designing & Rescuing Magic Systems Date: Wed, 5 Jan 1994 06:06:46 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <477CBD26EB2@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> RQ Magic needs to be written so that enough consistancies exist to allow a philosopher or scholar to be able to credibly develop Sorcery. This is the unification I seek. Note that I have seen no version of the RQIV draft. I enountered the Spirit Magic, Divine Magic and Sorcery in the 3rd Edition of RuneQuest and it was as if two decent, interdependent magic systems had the very pith sucked out of them and a third added thoughtlessly on the basis that more is better. I have not seen the RQIV drafts but consider this to be a pro-active attempt to restore some of the old "magic" back in this well-respected product. The Runes and the Myths that explained both them and the Gods need to be returned to the centre stage. To do this they need to be woven back into the fabric of the RQ magic system. I have typed up an example of what I am suggesting. Note that the format is designed for the medium of a mail note rather than a chapter of a rule book. This should give people an idea of what I am attempting to encourage. Note that I have rather a bleak view point on some issues ... :-) The Runes: The Runes are strong and complex archetypes that form the core of magic in Glorantha. Although someone may practise magic without achieving any affinity or mastery with any of these Runes the wise recognise their influence. Battle or Spirit Magic: This is characteristic of common, or low, magic. It is simple for the merely competent to acquire and use. These spells often reflect the aspects of the Runes. Shamanism: The Shamantic practises center on dealing with the Spirit Plane on it's own dream-like, abstract and often terrifying level. From his interaction and dealings the Shaman can gather Magic Spirit which can teach Battle or Spirit Magic. On the spirit plane any Runic associations of the spirits are visible. The Rune Cults: The Rune Cults are social, religious and politicial entities that perpetuate the observance of and further the cause of a Runic Diety. Through these cults a member can progress through various level of initiation, receiving Battle Magic as he or she progesses prehaps even to the point where they may become a Rune Lord or Rune Priest. Rune Priests: The Rune Priest has the ability to sacrifice for Rune Magic which is potent and rare as it is close to the Runic patterns of magic themselves. This potent magic rarely replicates Battle Magic except to provide the means for the Priest to trumph over it. Rune Priests & Battle Magic: Rune Magic can provide capabilities similar in effect to Shamantic practises. Battle Magic can be taught by Rune Priests who have the appropriate Rune Magic and in a more risk-free fashion for the student than is the case for Shamans. Death & the Ecology of Battle Magic: On death someone who possesses battle magic may become a Magic Spirit. The chance of this is relative to the quantity of Battle magic learnt. This explains why Battle Magic is so commonly available, the educators are merely restocking the world, although prehaps unaware they are performing this function. Death & the Ecology of the Rune Cult: On death a cult members spirit is commonly drawn to the cult's spiritual residence or amalgam. The chance of reaching this destination is relative to, in order of importance; scarificed Magic points, scarificed Power points and the amount of Rune Magic possessed at the point of death. This amalgam is the main source of Battle Magic from which Rune Priests draw. The Sorcerer: The Sorcerer attempts to use himself as the focus of magic rather associate himself with the Spirits or the Runic Dieties. This is an incredible feat to attempt as the subconciously taught Battle Magic and the granted Runic Magic must be do not further the path of learning and developing the concious magic of the Sorcerer. Regards -- Guy Robinson --  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.21/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA07722; Wed, 5 Jan 94 20:33:32 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA21821; Wed, 5 Jan 94 21:30:24 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 5 Jan 94 21:33:28 EDT From: David Cake To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Designing & Rescuing Magic Systems Date: Thu, 6 Jan 94 10:29:08 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <4842D493078@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Guy, I think that you need to realise that many of us will disagree with many of your individual points while in sympathy with your general view points. You obviously value issues like philosophical consistancy of the magic system more than issues like rules consistency or playability, which is a valid viewpoint. However, there are people who also value the philosophical basis, yet have very different opinions on it. > > > RQ Magic needs to be written so that enough consistancies exist to allow a > philosopher or scholar to be able to credibly develop Sorcery. This is the > unification I seek. Note that I have seen no version of the RQIV draft. > I don't really understand the reason for this. Especially in Glorantha, where while some sorcerous research is possible, I still think that the sort of experimentation and exploration required to design new spells will of necessity occur on the Hero-Plane (and is thus outside the RQ game system currently). I also think that sorcery is far to large and complex for a philosopher or scholar to 'credibly develop' it, though independent rediscovery of some minor sorcerous abilities is possible I guess. > I enountered the Spirit Magic, Divine Magic and Sorcery in the 3rd Edition of > RuneQuest and it was as if two decent, interdependent magic systems had the > very pith sucked out of them and a third added thoughtlessly on the basis > that more is better. > Well, I think that this is rather harsh. While the genericised deities of RQ3 Divine Magic seems to have been very off putting to old time RQ2ers, I think that the RQ3 Spirit magic rules had many significant improvements. Shamans in RQ3 are much improved, their abilities given a lot more thought as to both play balance and mythical basis, IMHO. And even the genericised deities should be compared not to Cults of Prax, but to the RQ2 rules book - which gave you a lot of in depth information about 3 cults, two of them almost useless in normal human based campaigns not set in Pavis. If the Intro to Glorantha book included Orlanth instead of/in addition to Ernalda, then the amount of game world info in both products is not dissimilar. I think that the mistake they made was not in the packaging of RQ3, but in not getting the in depth supplementary material out quickly. Gods of Glorantha was fine, but it is my opinion that if the Genertela box and a proper replacement for Cults of Prax (which we still don't have, and this is pretty inexcusable IMHO - most of the RQ3 full-length writeups are still hidden in obscure magazines - and TOTRM counts as obscure, I've got 'em, but they don't hit gaming shop shelves) had come out just after the RQ3 box, then RQ3 would be well accepted among old time RQ2 lovers. I think that the big delay meant that for some time RQ3 was bereft of good quality Glorantha supplements, and in that time frame many RQ2 players learnt to dislike RQ3. That problem is now largely fixed, but not entirely, and rules problems remain, particularly with sorcery. Sorcery is something that definately belongs in Glorantha in the abstract (Greg has been hinting strongly about it for a long time - particularly in Cults of Terror) but the system we have is just not very well designed. > I have not seen the RQIV drafts but consider this to be a pro-active attempt > to restore some of the old "magic" back in this well-respected product. The > Runes and the Myths that explained both them and the Gods need to be returned > to the centre stage. To do this they need to be woven back into the fabric > of the RQ magic system. > They never were part of the fabric of the RQ magic system. It is perfectly possible to use the RQ magic system in all its incarnations without mentioning runes at all. Personally, I think that this is fine. Myths, on the other hand, are very important. But I don't think that they should be directly part of the magic system. What we need is full-length write ups of cults and such, game info that comes accompanied by heaps of myth and background. Gods of Glorantha was basically a stop gap system - here is all the game-info, those of you who already have the old stuff for background can make do nicely for a while. But it was never followed up with the in dpeth Cults material that it should have been. But this stuff does not belong in the basic magic system. > Note that I have rather a bleak view point on some issues ... :-) > Yep. >The Runes: The Runes are strong and complex archetypes that form the core of >magic in Glorantha. Although someone may practise magic without achieving any >affinity or mastery with any of these Runes the wise recognise their influence. > The Runes are also the basis for a classification and formalisation of magic done by the God-Learners, and as such the very wise treat them with some suspicion. And don't forget Kralorela and the Doraddi of Pamaltela, to name two (and there are probably more) have their own runic systems. The point of all this is that the runes are basically a cultural artifact, that is reflected in the mythology, but they are not necessarily the deep profound basic secrets of the universe that RQ2 made them out to be. This change is due to a change in thinking on the part of Greg Stafford. >Battle or Spirit Magic: This is characteristic of common, or low, magic. It is >simple for the merely competent to acquire and use. These spells often reflect >the aspects of the Runes. > Well, I don't see the runic influence on RQ2 or RQ3 magic very clearly. The rest of what you say is true of both systems, and of spirit magic in RQ4. >Shamanism: The Shamantic practises center on dealing with the Spirit Plane on >it's own dream-like, abstract and often terrifying level. From his interaction >and dealings the Shaman can gather Magic Spirit which can teach Battle or >Spirit Magic. On the spirit plane any Runic associations of the spirits are >visible. > Yes, exactly why I liked the RQ3 shamanism better, because the interaction with the spirit plane was emphasised, and more rules provided. Not enough though, and more complete spirit plane rules are something RQ4 needs to provide (and currently does, but there is still room for improvement. Again, I didn't get the Runic bit - more the nature of the spirit becomes more apparent, which some may interpret as Runic associations. > The Rune Cults: The Rune Cults are social, religious and politicial entities > that perpetuate the observance of and further the cause of a Runic Diety. > Through these cults a member can progress through various level of initiation, > receiving Battle Magic as he or she progesses prehaps even to the point where > they may become a Rune Lord or Rune Priest. > I have never heard the term Rune Cults before. I just call 'em Cults. I am also a believer that Cults need not teach Rune Magic. Most do, of course, but the cults are social and religious organisations first, and providers of Rune Magic second. >Rune Priests: The Rune Priest has the ability to sacrifice for Rune Magic >which is potent and rare as it is close to the Runic patterns of magic >themselves. This potent magic rarely replicates Battle Magic except to provide >the means for the Priest to trumph over it. > I thought that it was potent and rare because is invoked the power of the God directly, rather than his worshippers. That seems to me like explanation enough without mentioning the Runes. I anticipate that the Runes are part of the rituals used in acquiring Rune Magic, etc. but I don't think that any priest would claim that the spells where powerful because of the Runes, he would say that they are powerful because of his Deity. >Rune Priests & Battle Magic: Rune Magic can provide capabilities similar in >effect to Shamantic practises. Battle Magic can be taught by Rune Priests who >have the appropriate Rune Magic and in a more risk-free fashion for the student >than is the case for Shamans. > Which pretty much describes the situation in RQ3, and is pretty close to the situation in RQ2 (could shamans without Rune Magic teach spells in RQ2?) >Death & the Ecology of Battle Magic: On death someone who possesses battle >magic may become a Magic Spirit. The chance of this is relative to the >quantity of Battle magic learnt. This explains why Battle Magic is so commonly >available, the educators are merely restocking the world, although prehaps >unaware they are performing this function. > Hmmm... don't like this much. While I have no philosophical atachment to RQ3 Spell Spirits, I am a bit uneasy about how this proposal meshes with the life after death beliefs of the majority of cults. >Death & the Ecology of the Rune Cult: On death a cult members spirit is >commonly drawn to the cult's spiritual residence or amalgam. The chance of >reaching this destination is relative to, in order of importance; scarificed >Magic points, scarificed Power points and the amount of Rune Magic possessed at >the point of death. This amalgam is the main source of Battle Magic from which >Rune Priests draw. > Which is in stark disagreement with most cults who teach that moral deeds influence destination more than magical ability. I think that the 'amalgam' that you refer to is more likely the combination of all the holy day mp sacrifices and POW sacrifices, including sacrifices from cult spirits etc. able to expressed along the channels created by heroquests of cult heroes. > The Sorcerer: The Sorcerer attempts to use himself as the focus of magic > rather associate himself with the Spirits or the Runic Dieties. This is an > incredible feat to attempt as the subconciously taught Battle Magic and the > granted Runic Magic must be do not further the path of learning and developing > the concious magic of the Sorcerer. > Yep. > Regards > > -- Guy Robinson -- > I applaud what you are trying to do, but I think that you are on the wrong track. The centre of a Gloranthan magical ecolgy is not the Runes, but HeroQuesting, and that is not something that is part of the RQ rules, and we will really have to wait for another game to gain a real understanding of it in rules based terms. The Runes are IMHO primarily useful as classification of what sort of powers and what part of the heroplane you are dealing with. I would also be very wary of codifying life after death in the rules as a blanket thing, I think that this varies greatly. Questions like where do spirits come from do need to be adressed. Personally I think that the separation in Intellect, Magic, Spell, etc, spirits was made for game purposes only, and I would much rather see a separation into Plant, animal, mineral, etc. spirits. In summary, I am with you in spirit, but against you on most of the particulars. Cheers Dave Cake PS apologies for extreme length.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.21/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA06244; Thu, 6 Jan 94 03:01:11 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA00830; Thu, 6 Jan 94 03:59:20 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 6 Jan 94 4:01:17 EDT From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Designing & Rescuing Magic Systems Date: Thu, 6 Jan 1994 00:58:31 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <48AA8C7399C@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Dave, Rest assured that I read the entirity of your mail note and I found it constructive and interesting. Thank you for reminding me of the hero quest concept and providing me with an excellent argument for the extreme rarity, or prehaps absence, of sorcerers in Glorantha. I must conceeed that RQ3 brought some usefull concepts with it. In RQ2 shaman dealt with the otherwise largely disinterested spirits that populated the spirit plane. They were underused and there were obvious parts missing like disease spirits, for example. Spirits appeared else where in the rules and in Golranthan society and they were described in a rather haphazard manner. In RQ3 they fleshed out the spirits, made Battle Magic the domain of Shamans but in doing so Battle Magic was shifted from it's role as the low magic of a fantasy society. To restore this I would recommend that both Priests and Shamans should be able to teach Battle Magic and that further more the similarities in their social and magicial roles, to cults and tribes respectively, should be explained. Your views about Runes are noted. In my reading of RQ2, given my preliction for bleak backgrounds, the Runes appeared to be more prominent that the Gods themselves who largely seemed bound to conform to them and be described by them. In RuneQuest 2 the Priest can scarifice for Rune Magic because he has mastered the Spirit Rune and has been accepted by his cult and diety as a Priest. The Rune Lord has also mastered a certain Rune when he becomes a Rune Lord (I've forgotten which). At least your explaination the Runes as a cultural variant are usefull for people who seek ways to design variations in local magic. After all the events of god time could, after all, be viewed from differing perspectives. I admit that codifying exactly what occurs after death might be distastfull and inappropriate for a number of reasons. However just as the death of a character's physicial body is dealt with so should the short term fate of the character's spirit. This could allow spell that only work on the freshly dead, when the spirit has yet become too dissassociated with it's body, to be defined. RQ3 was a turkey. It was the first role playing game to hit the UK at the kind of "premium" price it was sold at. Subsequently all I possess of it is a second hand copy of the Magic Book. What I am trying to do is build a general consensus and discusion about RQ magic. This has so far proved usefull for me and I hope it aids RQIV to save from the fate of RQ's last release. -- Guy Robinson --  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.21/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA03878; Thu, 6 Jan 94 13:18:47 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA29162; Thu, 6 Jan 94 14:16:29 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 6 Jan 94 14:18:50 EDT From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Designing & Rescuing Magic Systems Date: Thu, 06 Jan 1994 11:16:17 PST 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" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <494F2FC13C2@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Guy wrote: >an excellent argument for the >extreme rarity, or prehaps absence, of sorcerers in Glorantha. But there are entire sorcerous cultures in western Genertela! (You've seen Gods of Glorantha and the boxed Glorantha overview?) >To restore this I would recommend that both Priests and Shamans >should be able to teach Battle Magic and that further more the >similarities in their social and magicial roles Both of them do teach spirit magic. The Spellteaching rune spell is still there. David Dunham * Software Designer * Pensee Corporation Voice/Fax: 206 783 7404 * AppleLink: DDUNHAM * Internet: ddunham@radiomail.net "I say we should listen to the customers and give them what they want." "What they want is better products for free." --Scott Adams  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.21/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA28551; Fri, 7 Jan 94 03:31:02 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25370; Fri, 7 Jan 94 04:28:59 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 7 Jan 94 4:31:08 EDT From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Designing & Rescuing Magic Systems Date: Thu, 06 Jan 1994 23:43:08 MEZ Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <4A3287D14C9@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Guy Robinson writes: > extreme rarity, or prehaps absence, of sorcerers in Glorantha. David Dunham mentioned the Western culture whose magic is called sorcery by outsiders. They themselves prefer the word wizardry, and I'd suggest this to be the term used in the rules. Sorcerers are the rare independent users of that kind of magic, as well as anybody using strange magics. Delecti is considered a sorcerer, Argin Terror, Zzabur and the Orathorn inhabitants are, too, but what all these use can hardly be called sorcery in RQ3 terms. Oh, even some Praxian shamans or khans can justly be called sorcerers, e.g. when meddling with spirits like Cacodemon or Thed. > In RQ3 they fleshed out the spirits, made Battle Magic the domain of > Shamans but in doing so Battle Magic was shifted from it's role as > the low magic of a fantasy society. I agree here. To focus the spirit magic chapter on the shaman was an unneccessary thing to do, to say it cautiously. Call me a heretic, but the shamans' rules are no more core rules than the sorcery rules for western wizards, or the rules for heroquesting. I think it is impossible to fit all of Gloranthan or RuneQuest magic into one volume of the size of say the latest Pendragon rulesbook, let alone in a rulesbook aiming at newcomers. If RQ4 is to be released complete, it will a) take several years before it is issued, will b) be out of date by then, and will c) be more expensive than RQ3 (relative to other games, with the possible exception of Gygax's Dangerous Journeys). Someone else metioned other low magics besides battle magic. I'd like to see that in the rules, all the little ceremonies that might be magic spells, or might just be little psychological chants. Get rid of the five minutes duration, one MP cost, 50 m range limits, similar to certain divine spells with special duration, range or cost. Get rid of each and every effect coming instantly, and the magic system alone will provide a niche for RQ4. > Your views about Runes are noted. In my reading of RQ2, given > my preliction for bleak backgrounds, the Runes appeared to be > more prominent that the Gods themselves who largely seemed > bound to conform to them and be described by them. Certain deities rule over certain parts of nature, and impose their character and actions as law of this part of nature, often in opposed pairs. Some cultures which don't view the world as theistic prefer to call the deities "natural forces" and their realms of powers "runes". The theistic cultures do it vice versa. > In RuneQuest 2 the Priest can scarifice for Rune Magic because he > has mastered the Spirit Rune and has been accepted by his cult > and diety as a Priest. The Rune Lord has also mastered a certain > Rune when he becomes a Rune Lord (I've forgotten which). Could you give a reference for that? As latecomer to RQ I'm not too familiar with RQ2, and I can't remember this from Cults of Prax or Terror. > RQ3 was a turkey. It was the first role playing game to hit the > UK at the kind of "premium" price it was sold at. Subsequently > all I possess of it is a second hand copy of the Magic Book. >From your formulation I take it that the other main frps have followed suit, and AH had to cut their prices to sell the game in the UK. Why do you think did the Games Workshop edition fail to hit the market? I remember it as at least reasonably priced in Germany. I used it for a start, but switched to the AH "DeLuxe" edition after getting fed up with looking up everything in two different books, without cross-references. > What I am trying to do is build a general consensus and discusion > about RQ magic. This has so far proved usefull for me and I hope > it aids RQIV to save from the fate of RQ's last release. A just and noble cause. Did you read the discussions we had here earlier on? More than two thirds were about magic, if I recall correctly... -- Joerg Baumgartner rq4@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.21/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA22433; Thu, 6 Jan 94 17:59:00 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA13889; Thu, 6 Jan 94 18:57:10 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 6 Jan 94 18:59:07 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Designing & Rescuing Magic Systems Date: Thu, 6 Jan 94 18:56:50 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <499A0182140@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David Cake writes: > The point of all this is that the runes are basically a cultural >artifact, that is reflected in the mythology, but they are not necessarily the >deep profound basic secrets of the universe that RQ2 made them out to be. This is exactly right, and it really annoys me. I _liked_ the idea that GLorantha had deep underlying laws, some of which had been discovered by the inhabitants. "Everything is cultural relativism" BUGS me, because it broke up this vision of a REAL secondary world with consistent laws of its own. > This change is due to a change in thinking on the part of Greg Stafford. Having set out the basic premises for Glorantha, it is "cheating" to change them. Why not start another world with new premises? I think that many of the changes going on in Glorantha are intended to make Glorantha a "better" distorted copy of Earth. This, in my opinion, is a mistake. Glorantha used to be its own world - related to Earth, but different in its uderlying principles. Now that there ARE no underlying principles, it drifts toward being a bad, boring copy of Earth. I would rather play out a game set in sixth-century Constantinople with Justinian and Belisarius as characters, than in a Glorantha where the relationship between the Red Emperor and Fazzur is obviously cribbed from same. If the premises of the world include magic, then so be it: why forget about Oaths and other loyalty- insuring magic that allows the Emperor to trust his great generals? There is now too much of "Glorantha is just like Earth, but with magic." I would rather explore the consequences of Glorantha's different premises, or go and play a historical game. Enough tirade for now. All in all, I like Glorantha and am pleased with Greg. But it seemed like a more real world when there were natural laws to it - now it seems Chaotic, with no rules or different rules in different areas. What was wrong with Devolution? - Paul Reilly  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.21/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA25016; Thu, 6 Jan 94 18:53:55 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA15450; Thu, 6 Jan 94 19:52:03 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 6 Jan 94 19:54:01 EDT From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: runes Date: Thu, 06 Jan 1994 16:51:40 PST 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" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <49A8A5C48B2@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) >David Cake writes: > >> The point of all this is that the runes are basically a cultural >>artifact, that is reflected in the mythology, but they are not necessarily the >>deep profound basic secrets of the universe that RQ2 made them out to be. > > This is exactly right, and it really annoys me. I _liked_ the idea that >GLorantha had deep underlying laws, some of which had been discovered by the >inhabitants. "Everything is cultural relativism" BUGS me, because it broke >up this vision of a REAL secondary world with consistent laws of its own. I think there's room for both viewpoints. Maybe there _are_ deep underlying runes. Cultural ways of looking at them include both their shape, and the niggling breaking down of runes into subrunes (earth/malign earth, fire/light, dark/shadow, etc.). David Dunham * Software Designer * Pensee Corporation Voice/Fax: 206 783 7404 * AppleLink: DDUNHAM * Internet: ddunham@radiomail.net "I say we should listen to the customers and give them what they want." "What they want is better products for free." --Scott Adams  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.21/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA21058; Fri, 7 Jan 94 11:59:09 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA13410; Fri, 7 Jan 94 12:57:01 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 7 Jan 94 12:59:09 EDT From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Designing & Rescuing Magic Systems Date: Fri, 7 Jan 1994 09:56:02 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <4ABA0AF4351@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David Durham wrote: >But there are entire sorcerous cultures in western Genertela! (You've seen >Gods of Glorantha and the boxed Glorantha overview?) I have not read Gods of Glorantha nor the boxed Glorantha overview. I suspect that you are refering to material associated with RQ3 which would naturally promote the inclusion of RQ3 style Sorcery into Glorantha. BTW if the Spellteaching rune spell still exists then this is something I throughly approve of. Joerg Baumgartner looks at the cultural side of things: )Sorcerers are the rare )independent users of that kind of magic, as well as anybody using )strange magics. Delecti is considered a sorcerer, Argin Terror, Zzabur )and the Orathorn inhabitants are, too, but what all these use can hardly )be called sorcery in RQ3 terms. Oh, even some Praxian shamans or khans )can justly be called sorcerers, e.g. when meddling with spirits like )Cacodemon or Thed. This is a definition of a sorcerer that I can except in terms of cultural use as well as a game term. I feel that in RQ for sorcery, or alledged sorcery, to exist it would have to be exotic, or at least exotic from a Praxian perspective. )I think it is impossible )to fit all of Gloranthan or RuneQuest magic into one volume of the size )of say the latest Pendragon rulesbook, let alone in a rulesbook aiming )at newcomers. If RQ4 is to be released complete, it will a) take several )years before it is issued, will b) be out of date by then, and will c) )be more expensive than RQ3 (relative to other games, with the possible )exception of Gygax's Dangerous Journeys). I'd be happy with a partial coverage. Cover one culture well and provide pointers to the magical basics of other cultures. Write it so you need only the base ruleset to play but the other supplements provide the full details and more of that fine Gloranthan background. Ultimately magic provides the flavour of a fantasy background. In Dragon Pass (I could be suffering Gloranthan geography problems) the predominence of Cults is due in part both to the social and political strength of the Cult organisation and it's access to Rune magic. The proof of RQIV magic "pudding" will be in the eating. Unfortunately the only reference I can give to Rune Lords and Priest mastering certain Runes is the RQ2 rulebook itself. I'll attempt to find the quote. )Why do )you think did the Games Workshop edition fail to hit the market? I )remember it as at least reasonably priced in Germany. I used it for a )start, but switched to the AH "DeLuxe" edition after getting fed up with )looking up everything in two different books, without cross-references. The flagship of Games Workshop was, and continues to be, it's White Dwarf magazine. At the time it was attempting to cover only Games Workshop products after a distinguished history as the premier role playing magazine in the UK. It shifted it's focus to games that sold lead figures in bulk as the profit margin on them was impressive. Roleplayers started to abandon the publication and avoid their shops. The new audience they attracted was obviously not interested in an even more complex version of an old classic. Games Workshop now virtually sells only figures, paints for figures and war games for figures. Note that this is entirely a personal view and is not to associated in any fashion with my employers. Games Workshop are probably not to blame as they merely developed something that will sell to their target market. Regards -- Guy Robinson --  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.21/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA27486; Fri, 7 Jan 94 13:29:37 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA17197; Fri, 7 Jan 94 14:27:34 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 7 Jan 94 14:29:37 EDT From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Designing & Rescuing Magic Systems Date: Fri, 07 Jan 1994 11:27:19 PST 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" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <4AD22E90DCB@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com >David Durham wrote: DuNham >I have not read Gods of Glorantha nor the boxed Glorantha overview. I suspect >that you are refering to material associated with RQ3 which would naturally >promote the inclusion of RQ3 style Sorcery into Glorantha. While it's true that RQ3 supplements couch things in terms of RQ3 rules, I don't think they're making up Gloranthan stuff just so they can use the rule. Also, GoG has not only details on the sorcerous religion (which more or less has its own rune), but also two slightly differeng magic systems (for Kralorela and the Red Goddess). Glorantha has almost no game terms in it, but gives a broad overview of all the cultures and political units of Genertela. >BTW if the Spellteaching rune spell still exists then this is something >I throughly approve of. You said you had book 2; p.36. >This is a definition of a sorcerer that I can except in terms of cultural >use as well as a game term. I feel that in RQ for sorcery, or alledged >sorcery, to exist it would have to be exotic, or at least exotic from >a Praxian perspective. A Gloranthan uses the term "sorcery" to refer to another culture's magic system. As Joerg pointed out, the Westerners call their specialists Wizards. I hate to recommend you rush out and spend lots of money on boxed supplements, but I think you're denying the existence of stuff merely because you haven't read it. Greg Stafford is a prominent author of both Gods of Glorantha and Glorantha, and I think the two together give a pretty accurate overview of the wizards of western Genertela, and the fact that they use a completely different system of magic than, say, the Orlanthi. Whether or not this is RQ3 sorcery is a different question. David Dunham * Software Designer * Pensee Corporation Voice/Fax: 206 783 7404 * AppleLink: DDUNHAM * Internet: ddunham@radiomail.net "I say we should listen to the customers and give them what they want." "What they want is better products for free." --Scott Adams  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.21/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA19465; Fri, 7 Jan 94 20:08:08 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA00257; Fri, 7 Jan 94 21:06:12 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 7 Jan 94 21:08:12 EDT From: David Cake To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Designing & Rescuing Magic Systems Date: Sat, 8 Jan 94 10:05:14 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <4B3C7666B99@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > > I have not read Gods of Glorantha nor the boxed Glorantha overview. I suspect > that you are refering to material associated with RQ3 which would naturally > promote the inclusion of RQ3 style Sorcery into Glorantha. > No wonder you are so down on RQ3 if you haven't got the Genertela boxed set, this is a supplement you should buy even if you love RQ2 and hate RQ3. It is only very marginally associated with RQ3 (12 pages of stuff that mentions the rules in an entire boxed set). I also think that you are mistaken in the assertion that the Sorcery in the RQ3 stuff has only been placed in Glorantha because the rules exist. GO back and look at Cults of Terror, for example, where it mentions that the cultures of the West use a 'humanistic' rather than 'theistic' magic system, which sounds a lot like the basic philosophy of sorcery. Just because the RQ2 sorcery rules never made it beyond the playtest stage (there is an old article from Son of Sartar that someone posted about RQ2 sorcery ideas, written by Greg), doesn't mean that it wasn't something that Greg thought should eventually be covered by the game. As people have pointed out before, much of Gregs early writings in Glorantha is set in these cultures and mentions 'Wizards' rather than 'Priests'. Also, I just don't think that Greg works by extrapolating the world from the rules, very much the opposite. > BTW if the Spellteaching rune spell still exists then this is something > I throughly approve of. > Well, it does exist, but it works kind of differently, and it is no longer the only way to learn spells. But the fact that you didn't know it still exists certainly shows that you are criticising RQ3 with a great deal of ignorance about it. Which, while it means that your (Guy's) criticisms of the game may not be appropriate in some cases, does mean that you make a good case study of one of the big problems with RQ3 - the RQ2 fan that doesn't like RQ3, that was repelled by the new version early on in the peace, and never picked up some of the good new supplements (like Genertela). The question is why. Is it just conservatism? From some of Guys comments, and the comments of other people I know who have never got around to making the switch to RQ3, that is an element. People remember the actual RQ2 rules as being better than they were, and pick up on small changes and criticise them very strongly. The sections of the rules of RQ3 that are genuinely not very well done do not attract that much criticism from the RQ2 die hards (except sorcery, which they almost always loathe). I think that this effect is a consequence of the high regard in which people held RQ2, and we should tackle this problem by making the 4th edition carry on the strong points of RQ2, we should see it as a challenge to overcome. But it would be a disservice to Guy and other people who feel like him to characterise their feelings as simple conservatism. I think that they feel that RQ3 has failed them. We need to identify why they feel like this, and what we can do about it. Personally, I feel that what we was needed was good quality support material coming out straight after the game, that customers could buy straight away rather than have to wait a few years like we had to wait for Genertela. I really get the feeling that a book full of good quality long cult writeups, with a decent selection of world information, is a resource that is very sadly missing. Chaosium can not really claim to not have the resources to do this, because they already have - but they produced the marginally useful Troll Gods instead (a great supplement if you have many Uz PCs). There are probably enough long form cult writeups around (in places like TOTRM, Heroes, and the 6 at the back of River of Cradles), that 80% of such a supplement could be put together by cut and pasting. From TOTRM I have the long versions of Humakt, Maran Gor, Dormal, Magasta, The Hungry Ghosts, Gagarth, and the Crimson Bat. I speak here only of official Greg and Sandy copyright Chaosium cult writeups, excluding some other gems like Caladra and Aurelion. That is 7 writeups that as far as I know are available only in TOTRM, which is an amateur (but excellent) publication produced outside Chaosium and Avalon Hill. I think that there are at least 3 or 4 that are available only in old issues of Heroes or White Wolf. Reprint the ones from River of Cradles and you have a suplement of about 16 cult writeups, already written. Why haven't they? TOTRM is great, but it shouldn't be the only source of information as basic as the long write up of Humakt, that sort of info should be published by AH and promoted as a major suplement. I would really like to see the RQ4 rules be immediately followed by 'Cults of Maniria' or whatever. Hell, I would write it if I could. I'll get of my soap box now. > > The proof of RQIV magic "pudding" will be in the eating. > Well, yeah. But the rules are only a small part of the real RQ magic system. We need background material. > Unfortunately the only reference I can give to Rune Lords and Priest > mastering certain Runes is the RQ2 rulebook itself. I'll attempt to > find the quote. > Yes, I know that it is there, but just bear in mind that Greg is not likely to stand by everything he said then in quite the wy you may interpret it. And the 'mastery' of runes was never something that really had a game effect. As I recall Rune Lords where said to be associated with the Mastery Rune, and Rune Priests with the Magic Rune. Of course, now that RQ3 has pretty much broken down the Lord/Priest dichotomy for most minor and many major cults, to be replaced with a zoo of Lords with Rune Magic, Shamans with priestly magic, warrior acolytes, old style Lords, Lords without DI, sorcerers, priests with sorcerous magic, Red goddes initiates, etc. the straight forward Mastery/Magic runic associations don't really make that much sense except for the few cults that are still as in RQ2 (ermm.. 7 Mothers, Yelmalio). > > Regards > > -- Guy Robinson -- > Cheers Dave Cake  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.21/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA19782; Fri, 7 Jan 94 20:27:19 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA00638; Fri, 7 Jan 94 21:25:34 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 7 Jan 94 21:27:26 EDT From: David Cake To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: runes Date: Sat, 8 Jan 94 10:24:38 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <4B41A7606F1@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > > >From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) > >David Cake writes: > > >>> The point of all this is that the runes are basically a cultural >>>artifact,that is reflected in the mythology, but they are not necessarily the >>>deep profound basic secrets of the universe that RQ2 made them out to be. >> >> This is exactly right, and it really annoys me. I _liked_ the idea that >>GLorantha had deep underlying laws, some of which had been discovered by the >>inhabitants. "Everything is cultural relativism" BUGS me, because it broke >>up this vision of a REAL secondary world with consistent laws of its own. > > I think there's room for both viewpoints. Maybe there _are_ deep underlying > runes. Cultural ways of looking at them include both their shape, and the > niggling breaking down of runes into subrunes (earth/malign earth, > fire/light, dark/shadow, etc.). Actually, I prefer to think of it as the Runes are an attempt (and a fairly sucessful one) to understand some of the deep secrets of Glorantha. I think that the runes REPRESENT some of the deep truths, but I do not think that they are an intrinsic part of those secrets. The Kralorelan runes probably represent other deep secrets, or represent some of the same things in different ways. I think that there are definately deep underlying laws to Glorantha, and I think that most of them have to with HeroQuesting, and with Heroquests as active mythology building. The Runes are a good way to understand what powers you are dealing with when heroquesting. I agree that the sense of deep underlying laws of the universe is one of the attractions of glorantha, but I just never really saw the Runes as an integral part of it. > > David Dunham * Software Designer * Pensee Corporation > Voice/Fax: 206 783 7404 * AppleLink: DDUNHAM * Internet: ddunham@radiomail.net > "I say we should listen to the customers and give them what they want." > "What they want is better products for free." --Scott Adams > > Cheers Dave Cake  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.21/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA04977; Fri, 7 Jan 94 21:29:07 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01537; Fri, 7 Jan 94 22:27:17 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 7 Jan 94 22:29:12 EDT From: David Cake To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Designing & Rescuing Magic Systems Date: Sat, 8 Jan 94 11:12:54 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <4B52188003A@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > > > Dave, > > Rest assured that I read the entirity of your mail note and I found it > constructive and interesting. Thanks, I hope that you manage to develop a reasonably thick skin as I am not always as diplomatic as I might be. Thank you for reminding me of the hero > quest concept and providing me with an excellent argument for the > extreme rarity, or prehaps absence, of sorcerers in Glorantha. > I do not think that there is a good argument against Gloranthan sorcery. THer is certainly a lot of room for change in the specifics of sorcery, but I think that it is very definately the case that in glorantha there is a magic system based on individual abilities rather than divine power, a human centered system that does not of necessity posit any particular moral or religious system. Probably the single most important religious grouping of Glornatha, the Malkionists variants, is predomintly based around use of such a magic, and their society would be very different if it their magic did not have at least some aspects of sorcery (that are not shared by divine or spirit magic). But if you are not familiar with the Genertela boxed set, you are probably not so familar with this religion and the lands dominated by it. However, when it comes to the Dragon Pass / Sartar region, yes, sorcery is very rare. > I must conceeed that RQ3 brought some usefull concepts with it. > I think that RQ3 was 3 steps forward, 2 steps back. The biggest problem was being very slow to get up to speed as regards supplements (and this was the fault of both Chaosium and Avalon Hill), and badly playtested rules for some very important things - like sorcery. > In RQ2 shaman dealt with the otherwise largely disinterested spirits > that populated the spirit plane. They were underused and there were > obvious parts missing like disease spirits, for example. > Yes, I like RQ3 shamans a whole lot more, especially the way (not mentioned in the magic book) shamans can contact minor spirits and form very small cults, and that some cults have shamans rather than priests (like Ancestor Worship), making the Spirit/ Divine magic a very blurry boundary, unlike the sharp distinction it was in the magic book. There are certainly some Divine cults that think shamans are dangerous loons who should be suppressed, but there are other cults that depend on them. I think that this is the 'magical ecology' concept that you were aiming for - and I think that when you brought up the point it was not really clear to us that you had not read Gods of Glorantha. > Spirits appeared else where in the rules and in Golranthan society and > they were described in a rather haphazard manner. > > In RQ3 they fleshed out the spirits, made Battle Magic the domain of > Shamans but in doing so Battle Magic was shifted from it's role as > the low magic of a fantasy society. > Well, in my campaigns most characters learn most of their Battle Magic (I do prefer the name Spirit Magic, BTW, because I like to emphasise the non-martial uses of it) from divine cults - but yes, in the RQ3 magic book, too much emphasis was placed on Shamans - and not enough on casual users of spirit magic. > To restore this I would recommend that both Priests and Shamans > should be able to teach Battle Magic and that further more the > similarities in their social and magicial roles, to cults and > tribes respectively, should be explained. > Well, again, read GoG. What you say is very much the case. > Your views about Runes are noted. In my reading of RQ2, given > my preliction for bleak backgrounds, the Runes appeared to be > more prominent that the Gods themselves who largely seemed > bound to conform to them and be described by them. > I think that part of the change in emphasis comes from Greg, but I was never that big on Runes as all-important.a > In RuneQuest 2 the Priest can scarifice for Rune Magic because he > has mastered the Spirit Rune and has been accepted by his cult > and diety as a Priest. The Rune Lord has also mastered a certain > Rune when he becomes a Rune Lord (I've forgotten which). > Actually, I think Priests master the Magic Rune, Shamans the Spirit Rune ?, and Rune Lords Mastery. > I admit that codifying exactly what occurs after death might be > distastfull and inappropriate for a number of reasons. However > just as the death of a character's physicial body is dealt with > so should the short term fate of the character's spirit. > It is inappropriate in that you don't want game rules that contradict the source material - when the Sword says you have gone to Humakts Halls to fight in the Eternal Battle (or whatever) you should have no reason to doubt him. > This could allow spell that only work on the freshly dead, when > the spirit has yet become too dissassociated with it's body, to > be defined. > Much better, especially as this meshes well with the current defintion of Resurrection (after 7 days, your spirit goes to its fate (whatever that is) and is unresurrectable). It makes sense that in that 7 day interval, it is possible to do other things to that spirit - bind as a ghost, enslave it, whatever. However, once the spirit has gone, you shouldn't able to do anything - except maybe heroquest to the otherworld (but don't try this at home). > RQ3 was a turkey. It was the first role playing game to hit the > UK at the kind of "premium" price it was sold at. Subsequently > all I possess of it is a second hand copy of the Magic Book. > Yes - its price, and low quality components, has not helped sales any. Personally, I want big books, with lasting bindings. This probably shifts the price up to the same level as Vampire, Shadowrun, Pendragon or Call of Cthulhu, none of which are cheap - though we don't need the fancy colour internal art of Shadowrun, etc. But I think people are willing to pay more money for solid lasting books. Here in Australia, it probably helps us pay less import duty (can make it a book rather than a game), so the price differential is not that bad either. > What I am trying to do is build a general consensus and discusion > about RQ magic. This has so far proved usefull for me and I hope > it aids RQIV to save from the fate of RQ's last release. > So are we all. I think that by and large most of us are fairly happy with what we have seen of the RQ4 combat and skills and character creation rules (not always completely thrilled, but certainly no major complaints). However the magic system, and the packaging and marketing of the background necesary to make it work, remains the major source of concern with the RQ4 project. > -- Guy Robinson -- > Cheers Dave Cake  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.21/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA11144; Mon, 10 Jan 94 03:34:02 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA24467; Mon, 10 Jan 94 04:27:27 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 10 Jan 94 4:34:08 EDT From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: RQ2, RQ3 and Lessons to be Learnt Date: Mon, 10 Jan 1994 01:26:57 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <4EB24845C15@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> RuneQuest 2 was not faultless. It was very much the kind of rule book where statements and assertions were only made once and if you forgot where you first read them they were a devil to find again. It was a game that provided a distinct background when other games commonly suggested playing against a setting of medicore, blended fantasy. Races other games would have dismissed as monsters were represent as fellow sentients. Great encouragements existed to allow people to advance socially as the only reward for combat for combat sake was commonly death itself. Rather than just supply different sets of magic RuneQuest actually appeared to be prepared to talk myths and concepts first. The Runes were not water tight in their conception, of course, but they gave a strong flavour to an abitiously complex rule book. The magic system supported the balance of power for the social and political system fo Glorantha and with the rest of the world undefined you could sit down and write another slice of that world. For me the other publications associated with RuneQuest came as part of an oral tradition where people would enthuse about the rich background and shudder about the largely unwanted whimsey of those anthropomorphic ducks. RuneQuest 3 could have done a number of things. I was hoping that it would gather the rules which you had to glean from the description of each spell. I would have like to have seen single-line references to the Priest-Shaman in the RQ2 rules expanded, for example. Instead what was delivered with essentially Basic Roleplaying 2 with the RuneQuest badge. Too much work was put into producing a generic work rather than servicing and preserving the RuneQuest line. The blandness nearly swallowed RuneQuest. I was totally uninspired when I read what I was finally able to afford. For RQIV to be built from RQ3 is disheartening for those reasons. The contents and presentation of the fourth edition of RuneQuest should be guided by good writing and carefull attention to the market. Revive RQ2's spirit in a modern, flexible manner, with the more worthy parts of RQ3, and you may find that the market awakes. A lot of RQ devotees, formerly sated with their purchases, might awake and those who have heard of this well-respected game might seek to explore this game whose roots lie in the dawn of modern roleplaying. Regards -- Guy Robinson --  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.21/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA09826; Tue, 11 Jan 94 02:47:06 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA26476; Tue, 11 Jan 94 03:45:11 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 11 Jan 94 3:47:14 EDT From: Brian Jackson To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Playtesting Date: Mon, 10 Jan 94 10:36:06 WET Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <50271362342@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Having only recently obtained a copy of 2.0 draft, I'm starting to playtest it with a group of players who are new to RQ. I have already made several alterations to the draft and I was about to produce them for you all to critisise, praise, etc. Then I found out that a third draft was soon to be released, and not only that, but alot of people want the distribution to be more limited (which will probally put me out of the picture). So I have two questions: 1) Does anyone think it will be worth me producing my alterations to the secound draft ? (Which are mainly changes to combat) and 2) Will the powers-that-be put me on the on the list of people to receive the new draft ? Brian Jackson.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.21/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA11022; Tue, 11 Jan 94 03:37:29 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA27155; Tue, 11 Jan 94 04:35:38 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 11 Jan 94 4:37:36 EDT From: Brian Jackson To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Status report Date: Mon, 10 Jan 94 10:55:01 WET Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <503488D271D@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> I'm glad you cleared the air a bit. I have only recently started playing the second draft with a group new to RQ and would very much like to receive the next draft, either directly or second hand, if anyone out there would be so kind. Brian Jackson  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.21/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA14079; Mon, 10 Jan 94 05:22:12 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25630; Mon, 10 Jan 94 06:16:48 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 10 Jan 94 6:22:17 EDT From: Tim Westlake To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Designing & Rescuing Magic Systems Date: Mon, 10 Jan 94 11:13 GMT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <4ECF6C8385A@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> In-Reply-To: <499A0182140@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Paul Reilly writes > I _liked_ the idea that Glorantha had deep underlying laws, some of > which had been discovered by the inhabitants. Absolutely, I couldnt agree more. The strongest part of Runequest for me has allways been the environment of Glorantha and the way that the game system complimented the world. > There is now too much of "Glorantha is just like Earth, but with > magic." Yep! Glorantha exists because of its mythic creation. It is not Earth, it is nothing like Earth and Earth concepts should not be applied to it. There is no way that we can extrapolate the effects of magic on societies, not when they have had over a thousand of years to work on it and a natural understanding of its mechanics and limitations. Glorantha is a fantasy environment and should be viewed as such. As a side issue The other night I sat down and read the RQ2 rule book. All of the rules took me about 2 hours. This was a great strength to the game and led to its popularity amongst new gamers in the early eighties. You could buy all of the game mechanics in one book and they were easy to understand. RQ3 altered this and understanding the game became a lot more of a serious exercise, so much so that with the group that I play in we actually run RQ2 with a couple of minor modifications. TTFN Tim  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.21/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA01943; Mon, 10 Jan 94 18:06:45 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA11276; Mon, 10 Jan 94 19:04:41 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 10 Jan 94 19:06:49 EDT From: "Newton Hughes" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: re: a side issue Date: Mon, 10 Jan 94 18:02:04 CST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <4F9C3EF0477@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Tim Westlake says: >he other night I sat down and read the RQ2 rule book. All of the rules >ook me about 2 hours. This was a great strength to the game and led to Just last month I found a copy of the 2d ed. rulebook at a local store. IMHO the fundamental difference between the two editions is that where the 3d edition is busy constructing elaborate grand unified theories, the 2d edition just gives you clear guidelines. Examples are the character creation systems, the skill improvement systems, the armor rules. In each of these instances, the 3d edition is extremely compli- cated, not very useful, and has a strong generic odor about it. The 2d edition equivalents were more limited, but are a lot easier to use, and the results are much more directly useful in a game. --Newton  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.21/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA10080; Tue, 11 Jan 94 02:54:59 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA26544; Tue, 11 Jan 94 03:53:11 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 11 Jan 94 3:55:04 EDT From: David Cake To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RQ2, RQ3 and Lessons to be Learnt Date: Tue, 11 Jan 94 16:52:14 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <502930E32EC@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > It was a game that provided a distinct background when other games commonly > suggested playing against a setting of medicore, blended fantasy. Races > other games would have dismissed as monsters were represent as fellow > sentients. Great encouragements existed to allow people to advance socially > as the only reward for combat for combat sake was commonly death itself. > Yes. I don't think that this was lost with RQ3 - but it didn't come across well in the rules. Elder Secrets and the reissued troll stuff was great for non-humans. Much of the source maintained the same rich culture. But it didn't come across as well in the rules book. > Rather than just supply different sets of magic RuneQuest actually appeared > to be prepared to talk myths and concepts first. The Runes were not water > tight in their conception, of course, but they gave a strong flavour to an > abitiously complex rule book. > Agreed. I am certainly not in favour of removing them - but I think that as the vision Greg and others had of Gloranthan magic, the Runic concept became less important, and I think that we should be encouraging development of the magic system in other ways, not just trying to recapture as much of the RQ2 flavour. For example RQ3 shamans are better developed than RQ2 shamans, and RQ4 are better than either, and parts of RQ4 like spirit lore, banishment, more spirit plane stuff, all help add depth and flavour to that part of the magic system - and in the process departing further from the 'runic' concept. > > For me the other publications associated with RuneQuest came as part of an > oral tradition where people would enthuse about the rich background and > shudder about the largely unwanted whimsey of those anthropomorphic ducks. > Which other publications? For me, RQ2 without the cults books was an exercise in frustration - a nice rules system fairly closely tied to a world you knew too little about. The adventures where fine, and I suspect that Borderlands, Pavis, Griffon Mountain, etc. where a large part of why they loved RQ2. Only recently has RQ3 begun producing adventures of comparable calibre. > RuneQuest 3 could have done a number of things. I was hoping that it > would gather the rules which you had to glean from the description of > each spell. I would have like to have seen single-line references to > the Priest-Shaman in the RQ2 rules expanded, for example. > Hmm... I was hoping for a bit more than that. I am starting to see what I wanted from RQ3 with RQ4 and Pendragon. > Instead what was delivered with essentially Basic Roleplaying 2 with the > RuneQuest badge. Too much work was put into producing a generic work > rather than servicing and preserving the RuneQuest line. The blandness > nearly swallowed RuneQuest. I was totally uninspired when I read what > I was finally able to afford. > Well, I didn't mind the blandness - because I used RQ3 as RULES. Sorry to shout, but I read them, thought about which rules I liked, decided most where OK, some overdue, and some ill-considered. I already had some great RQ2 supplements - I still had Glorantha, I didn't need to buy it again. The problem was it didn't grab the new guys. Those of us who loved Glorantha already seemed to mostly (with a few exceptions) hang around until our faith was rewarded with Genertela, SunCounty, and TOTRM (3 cheers!). But it was the people with no RQ2 stuff that were ignored. > For RQIV to be built from RQ3 is disheartening for those reasons. > For RQ4 to ignore the changes in RQ3 and return to the simplistic, often limited, now rather outdated looking rules of RQ2 would be just as stupid as for it to ignore the criticisms of RQ3. RQ4 is coming into existence in a very different gaming hobby than it ancestor RQ1 (and the very similar RQ2). RQ2 was groundbreaking, and now it is history - fondly remembered, but looking pretty simplistic by todays standards. RQ3 at least looks like they tried. RQ4 lets hope they get it right. > The contents and presentation of the fourth edition of RuneQuest should > be guided by good writing and carefull attention to the market. Revive > RQ2's spirit in a modern, flexible manner, with the more worthy parts of > RQ3, and you may find that the market awakes. > Was someone suggesting something else? RQ2's spirit was the spirit of Glorantha, as embodied in Cults of Prax and Cults of Terror and many excellent scenarios. There are very are very few parts of RQ3 where RQ2 had an obviously better system - often a simpler and also less complete system, but seldom just a better one. The worst parts of RQ3 are not the replacements, but the extensions that didn't really work very well due to lack of playtesting. RQ4 can't just aim for what RQ2 did - it needs to aim for what RQ3 tried for and failed, but succeed. > A lot of RQ devotees, formerly sated with their purchases, might awake > and those who have heard of this well-respected game might seek to > explore this game whose roots lie in the dawn of modern roleplaying. > If RQ4 is going to succeed, it is not going to succeed as well-respected history, it is going to succeed by being a game that is good by todays standards. We can do that. > Regards > > -- Guy Robinson -- > Cheers Dave the model of tact and diplomacy :-)  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.21/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA08671; Tue, 11 Jan 94 20:27:03 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA21079; Tue, 11 Jan 94 21:24:25 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 11 Jan 94 21:27:10 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 11 Jan 94 21:24:13 EST From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RQ2, RQ3 and Lessons to be Learnt Date: Tue, 11 Jan 94 00:52:38 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <51418887253@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com writes: > Instead what was delivered with essentially Basic Roleplaying 2 with the > RuneQuest badge. Too much work was put into producing a generic work > rather than servicing and preserving the RuneQuest line. The blandness > nearly swallowed RuneQuest. I was totally uninspired when I read what > I was finally able to afford. > > For RQIV to be built from RQ3 is disheartening for those reasons. > To present another point of view on this, by the time RQ3 came out, I had pretty much abandoned RQ, even though I still considered it mechanically superior to much on the market, because it mad too specific assumptions as to the sort of world it was to be used with to be very useful to anyone not wanting to run Glorantha. RQ3's flaws were basically three-fold: 1) Rules that had not been properly playtested. Both Sorcery and the fatigue rules were fundamentally sound ideas that often contributed to play. Unfortunately, their execution also was such that they could DETRACT from play just as easily. 2) Support. The Gloranthan material for the game was late in coming, and much of the non-Gloranthan material (which was, remember, what I was really interested in) was not very good in quality. 3) Cost. For a product that was hardly of outstanding physical quality, RQ3 was grossly overpriced. Even by modern standards, $30 is a pretty pricey RPG. None of this, however, detracts from the fact that there were many good features in RQ3. I think the over-fixation RQ fans have on RQ2 is just another version of the gaming conservatives disease; they were used to it, and didn't want it changed, period. ------------------------------ shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) or qed!shadow The QED BBS -- (310)420-9327  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.21/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA04303; Tue, 11 Jan 94 12:01:39 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA22519; Tue, 11 Jan 94 12:59:21 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 11 Jan 94 13:01:38 EST From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RQ2, RQ3 and Lessons to be Learnt Date: Tue, 11 Jan 1994 09:52:23 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <50BADB541C6@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Dave Cake raises three issues in response to my comments: Concerning RQ3 as a publication: > >Well, I didn't mind the blandness - because I used RQ3 as RULES. Sorry to >shout, but I read them, thought about which rules I liked, decided most where >OK, some overdue, and some ill-considered. I already had some great RQ2 >supplements - I still had Glorantha, I didn't need to buy it again. I assessed RQ3 as RULES and found it lacking. Thinking about the rules that I like I rejected the publication. My perspective was that I had a good enough rule system in RQ2 and RQ3 did not add anything worth while. However I did decide that the Magic Book was worth picking up and subsequently bought a second hand copy. Concerning RQ2 as a publication: >For me, RQ2 without the cults books was an exercise >in frustration - a nice rules system fairly closely tied to a world you >knew too little about. My Glorantha was in the RQ2 book. The UK gaming oral tradition was strong enough for people to relate details of the background. Take Stormbull for example. I have never read a direct write-up of this cult but I feel that I have enough details to use it in a game. Part of this was due to the gaming community's enthusiasm for this product. The rest I could make up myself, with a little imagination. The "contemplate and feel" of RQ3 and RQ4: >Agreed. I am certainly not in favour of removing them [the Runes] - but I >think that as >the vision Greg and others had of Gloranthan magic, the Runic concept became >less important, and I think that we should be encouraging development of >the magic system in other ways, not just trying to recapture as much of the >RQ2 flavour. For example RQ3 shamans are better developed than RQ2 shamans, and >RQ4 are better than either, and parts of RQ4 like spirit lore, banishment, >more spirit plane stuff, all help add depth and flavour to that part of the >magic system - and in the process departing further from the 'runic' concept. I have already stated that some of the RQ3 shamantic rules are acceptable and no doubt the RQIV shamantic material contains usefull concepts as well. Do not misinterpret me, I am not a "Rune" fan but an admirer of the "RuneQuest" background. I assert that RQ3 was more Basic Roleplaying than RuneQuest. Given that I judged RQ3 to be a mistake I believe that the magic system should be encouraged to develop in a manner that is consistent with the task of promoting that unique Gloranthan style of society. By the term Gloranthan I mean mainly the area and culture described in the RQ2 rule book, my core, published reference. Note that I have refered to my judgement of RQ3 in the past tense. I liked the "contemplate and feel" of the RQ society as largely suggested by rules and background within the RQ2 book. If the writers of RQIV can come with something as satisfying then I believe it will be successfull. I, and no doubt a large number of other role players, will ultimately judge it against RQ2. I would love to assess RQIV and but I believe that it is unethical for me to pull the RQIV 2nd draft by ftp and read it without permission of the company involved. I have applied to playtest the latest release. Regards -- Guy Robinson --  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.21/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA13265; Tue, 11 Jan 94 13:57:32 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA00499; Tue, 11 Jan 94 14:55:44 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 11 Jan 94 14:57:30 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 11 Jan 94 14:55:29 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RQ2, RQ3 and Lessons to be Learnt Date: Tue, 11 Jan 1994 11:55:20 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <50D9DD17A7F@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >I assessed RQ3 as RULES and found it lacking. Thinking about the rules >that I like I rejected the publication. My perspective was that I had a good >enough rule system in RQ2 and RQ3 did not add anything worth while. However >I did decide that the Magic Book was worth picking up and subsequently bought >a second hand copy. For what it's worth, I think some of the best stuff is in book 3. And if you're a Glorantha-phile, you'd need book 5 for the Cult of Ernalda. >I would love to assess RQIV and but I believe that it is unethical for >me to pull the RQIV 2nd draft by ftp and read it without permission of >the company involved. I have applied to playtest the latest release. Wasn't it explicitly posted to an ftp site by the authors? David Dunham * Software Designer * Pensee Corporation Voice/Fax: 206 783 7404 * AppleLink: DDUNHAM * Internet: ddunham@radiomail.net "I say we should listen to the customers and give them what they want." "What they want is better products for free." --Scott Adams  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.21/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA01212; Tue, 11 Jan 94 18:01:29 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA15635; Tue, 11 Jan 94 18:59:23 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 11 Jan 94 19:01:31 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 11 Jan 94 18:59:15 EST From: JOVANOVIC@CUCCFA.CCC.COLUMBIA.EDU To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Follow up on the new draft Date: Tue, 11 Jan 1994 18:59:14 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <511AE1E4380@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Some follow up news on the new draft. So far it looks like we'll be on schedule for RuneQuest Con (barely). I'll be handing out some 20 odd copies of the new draft to playtesters there, then following up with more mailings after the Con. Brian, in response to your question, the new draft has a lot of changes from the second draft (which is now over a year old and very out of date). Combat is one of the areas that has seen a number of changes and simplifications. I will add you to our list of interested playtesters, but can't guarantee you a copy of the draft at this point. In response to an earlier comment, damage bonus has seen adjustments for exactly the points brought up. With respect to the comments about RQ2, RQ2 had some excellant ideas, and certainly was simpler to deal with in a number of ways. In some areas the new draft is probably a bit closer in spirit to RQ2 than RQIII, but it differs from both in a number of areas, with what we hope are significant improvements over both RQ2 and RQIII. Oliver P.S. David, neither Carl nor I posted the second draft to an ftp site.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.21/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA10869; Wed, 12 Jan 94 02:57:03 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA00140; Wed, 12 Jan 94 03:54:49 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 12 Jan 94 3:56:57 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 12 Jan 94 3:54:36 EST From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RQ2, RQ3 and Lessons to be Learnt Date: Wed, 12 Jan 1994 00:53:53 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <51A9A703440@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Wayne Shaw wrote: >To present another point of view on this, by the time RQ3 came out, I had >pretty much abandoned RQ, even though I still considered it mechanically >superior to much on the market, because it made too specific assumptions >as to the sort of world it was to be used with to be very useful to >anyone not wanting to run Glorantha. RQ3's flaws were basically >three-fold: 1) Rules that had not been properly playtested [...] >2) Support [...] 3) Cost. [...] I'm glad that you enjoyed RQ3 on it's Basic Roleplaying system level. I must admit that I have played many games that have used Basic Roleplaying as it's core system. Those that have worked for me focused on a certain background like CoC, Stormbringer and Hawkmoon. >None of this, however, detracts from the fact that there were many good >features in RQ3. I think the over-fixation RQ fans have on RQ2 is just >another version of the gaming conservatives disease; they were used to >it, and didn't want it changed, period. I believe that the problem was that many RQ fans simply did not buy RQ3. RQ2 provided a sufficent system and something that gave a lot of people a real creative kick of inspiration. Sadly RQ3 concentrated on the rules, providing something inconsistent to the society and background many RQ fans had woven from RQ2. Prehaps Basic Roleplaying released to as a Generic Roleplaying product is the kind of product you are seeking. Anyway my request to playtest, which I submitted earlier, has been acknowledged so I may receive a copy of RQIV. Rest assured that a good number of my immediate gaming community think as highly of Basic Roleplaying as you obviously do. They will form the core of the groups I plan to play-test with. Expect the ground work I have been laying to be augmented with comment, review and constructive criticism on RQIV once I received the mailing which looks like it will be after the RuneQuest Con. Regards, -- Guy Robinson --  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.21/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA14762; Wed, 12 Jan 94 05:18:02 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01768; Wed, 12 Jan 94 06:15:52 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 12 Jan 94 6:17:55 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 12 Jan 94 6:15:40 EST From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Follow up on the new draft Date: Wed, 12 Jan 94 01:53:53 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <51CF4663A25@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> JOVANOVIC@CUCCFA.CCC.COLUMBIA.EDU writes: > Some follow up news on the new draft. > Thanks for doing this, Oliver. Some of us had been wondering what the status was. I'll be interested to see what you folks have done this time around; particularly how you finally resolved the damage/damage bonus/armor issue. ------------------------------ shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) or qed!shadow The QED BBS -- (310)420-9327  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.21/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA12026; Thu, 13 Jan 94 23:48:05 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA04210; Fri, 14 Jan 94 00:45:46 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 14 Jan 94 0:47:58 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 14 Jan 94 0:45:37 EST From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RQ2, RQ3 and Lessons to be Learnt Date: Wed, 12 Jan 94 04:04:08 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <743C4279C@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com writes: > > Prehaps Basic Roleplaying released to as a Generic Roleplaying product > is the kind of product you are seeking. Not exactly. BRP was, well, too basic. I WANT something that discusses character generation in regard to cultural backgrounds and the like; and I want mechanics more detailed than existed in BRP. What I wanted, was, in fact, once refered to in my group as "Advanced Roleplaying". RQ3, warts and all, attempted to fill that. I thought the 2.0 draft of the RQ4 playtest filled it better. ------------------------------ shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) or qed!shadow The QED BBS -- (310)420-9327  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.21/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA21564; Fri, 14 Jan 94 04:27:08 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA08922; Fri, 14 Jan 94 05:25:05 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 14 Jan 94 5:27:01 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 14 Jan 94 5:24:51 EST From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RQ2, RQ3 and Lessons to be Learnt Date: Wed, 12 Jan 1994 20:41:56 MEZ Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: Guy Robinson writes: > I liked the "contemplate and feel" of the RQ society as largely > suggested by rules and background within the RQ2 book. If the writers > of RQIV can come with something as satisfying then I believe it will > be successfull. I, and no doubt a large number of other role > players, will ultimately judge it against RQ2. What? How should people who came into roleplaying around 1985 or later compare RQ4 to a system they can get a glimpse at only with great (and I mean GREAT) difficulties? The vast number of roleplayers out there never had a chance to have a look at RQ2, and may know it only from reputation. Bt these are the customers AH must cater for. -- Joerg Baumgartner rq4@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Date: Wed, 12 Jan 1994 13:51-0600 Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.21/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA20810; Wed, 12 Jan 94 13:51:05 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01323; Wed, 12 Jan 94 14:48:39 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 12 Jan 94 14:50:56 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 12 Jan 94 14:48:26 EST From: Tim Westlake To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: FW: Re: RQ2, RQ3 and Lessons to be Learnt Date: Wed, 12 Jan 94 19:39 GMT0 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <5258069181F@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Wayne >To present another point of view on this, by the time RQ3 came out, I >had pretty much abandoned RQ, even though I still considered it >mechanically superior to much on the market, because it mad too >specific assumptions as to the sort of world it was to be used with to >be very useful to anyone not wanting to run Glorantha. To me, Glorantha is so much a part of the system as to be indivisable from it. This is probably one reason why I didnt like RQIII as much, it seem to generic and .... well, almost boring. >2) Support. The Gloranthan material for the game was late in coming, >and much of the non-Gloranthan material (which was, remember, what I >was really interested in) was not very good in quality. True, however the later stuff has become much better. >3) Cost. For a product that was hardly of outstanding physical >quality, RQ3 was grossly overpriced. Even by modern standards, $30 is a >pretty pricey RPG. Absolutely. You were lucky if it only cost $30. Original price in the UK was 45 pounds (at the time the pound - $ rate was about 1:2 so about $90 to you). This all but killed the game in the UK. It was only those of us that had RQ2 that kept any interest alive. >None of this, however, detracts from the fact that there were many good >features in RQ3. Errr .... OK, I'll beleive you on this :-). There were a number of local modifications to the rules that we had made in our local games group that to us made sense, some of which did appear in RQIII. >I think the over-fixation RQ fans have on RQ2 is just another version >of the gaming conservatives disease; they were used to it, and didn't >want it changed, period. Oh! Oh! Unfair! Unfair! I may be a couch potatoe but I currently play in 10 different games with widely differing rule sets (CyberPunk to D&D, Runequest to Amber) and run 4 different systems myself. I do not consider myself unable to change to a different system. I may need an incentive (like it looks fun or I can see a good benefit in te change) but I am still willing to try new systems. Conservative indeed! Bah humbug! :-) Tim  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.21/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA11468; Wed, 12 Jan 94 21:58:40 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25657; Wed, 12 Jan 94 22:56:23 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 12 Jan 94 22:58:31 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 12 Jan 94 22:56:07 EST From: David Cake To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: FW: Re: RQ2, RQ3 and Lessons to be Learnt Date: Thu, 13 Jan 94 11:55:20 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <52DA1844202@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > > >2) Support. The Gloranthan material for the game was late in coming, > >and much of the non-Gloranthan material (which was, remember, what I > >was really interested in) was not very good in quality. > Well, I am definately with you on the gloranthan support issue - RQ4 needs to make a real effort to not cause the same problems. As for the non-Gloranthan material - I found none of the Gateway stuff satisfying, and some of it awful, but I really rather liked the RQ Earth stuff - Vikings and Land of Ninja. Both were rather good, though I must admit the highly specific nature of such campaigns and the lack of support has meant that they have seen little direct use. To avoid RQ4 causing more support problems I have one important suggestion - that RQ4 include a section at the back that includes the revisions made to various supplements (like updates of the Elder Secrets character creation sections, for example) so that not all supplements need to be reissued. I'd even do it myself! Shadowrun 2nd edition did this, to cover the major rules changes between editions, and it worked well. Chaosium and AH do not have the resources to do as TSR, and update all the supplements individually. This is also a reason why I dislike the change to the weapon damage and armour amounts that are a part of the current draft - because it makes compatibility between statistivs for the various editions much more of a problem, and doesn't help the game that much. But it is possible I guess. > True, however the later stuff has become much better. > At least equal to the RQ2 stuff in writing, and often much better in presentation. > >None of this, however, detracts from the fact that there were many good > >features in RQ3. > Too right! Just some bad ones as well. > Errr .... OK, I'll beleive you on this :-). There were a number of local > modifications to the rules that we had made in our local games group > that to us made sense, some of which did appear in RQIII. > > >I think the over-fixation RQ fans have on RQ2 is just another version > >of the gaming conservatives disease; they were used to it, and didn't > >want it changed, period. > > Oh! Oh! Unfair! Unfair! I may be a couch potatoe but I currently play in > 10 different games with widely differing rule sets (CyberPunk to D&D, > Runequest to Amber) and run 4 different systems myself. I do not > consider myself unable to change to a different system. I may need an > incentive (like it looks fun or I can see a good benefit in te change) > but I am still willing to try new systems. > Well, I know several gamers experienced with multiple systems, etc, whose reaction to RQ2 is best characterised as conservatism, and so I find it easy to believe that you fit into that category too. They were very put off by changes to game balance, major changes to the way the magic system worked (such as the requirments for becoming priests), and some changes to the magic system that effectively changed the cosmology of Glorantha, such as the existence of spell spirits. They rejected these changes because they were changes, not because they were bad rules, many of them play extensively in games wih much worse rules. They expected a game that they could just fit existing campaigns into seamlessly - and they didn't get it. Not only did some rules changes make a big difference to play, but they world didn't work quite the same. And when the glowing new Gloranthan supplements didn't appear, they had nothing to inspire their enthusiasm about RQ3 as things like Borderlands and Pavis did about RQ2. > Conservative indeed! Bah humbug! > > :-) > > Tim > Cheers Dave  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.21/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA15146; Wed, 12 Jan 94 22:57:20 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA27308; Wed, 12 Jan 94 23:55:13 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 12 Jan 94 23:57:07 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 12 Jan 94 23:55:10 EST From: David Cake To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RQ2, RQ3 and Lessons to be Learnt Date: Thu, 13 Jan 94 12:54:24 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <52E9D7C2F83@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > > > Dave Cake raises three issues in response to my comments: > > Concerning RQ3 as a publication: > > > >Well, I didn't mind the blandness - because I used RQ3 as RULES. Sorry to > >shout, but I read them, thought about which rules I liked, decided most where > >OK, some overdue, and some ill-considered. I already had some great RQ2 > >supplements - I still had Glorantha, I didn't need to buy it again. > > I assessed RQ3 as RULES and found it lacking. Thinking about the rules > that I like I rejected the publication. My perspective was that I had a good > enough rule system in RQ2 and RQ3 did not add anything worth while. However > I did decide that the Magic Book was worth picking up and subsequently bought > a second hand copy. > Well, The only real big change in the main rules book was the new character creation system which has good points and bad points when compared with RQ2, but I can well understand not likeing it. I think many people end up using a fair few house rules with both RQ2 and RQ3 (I remember a certain argument about parrying rules in RQ2 that ended up with the game stopping for hours while people used large sticks and kitchen knives to assess the parrying abilities of daggers and hafted weapons!). Certainly RQ3 has many flaws - and we all agree or we wouldn't be interested in RQ4 in the first place. And the price was extreme. Actually, I would have thought that most of the changes that really divide opinions where in the Magic Book, that is certainly my experience. > Concerning RQ2 as a publication: > > >For me, RQ2 without the cults books was an exercise > >in frustration - a nice rules system fairly closely tied to a world you > >knew too little about. > > My Glorantha was in the RQ2 book. The UK gaming oral tradition was strong > enough for people to relate details of the background. Take Stormbull for > example. I have never read a direct write-up of this cult but I feel that > I have enough details to use it in a game. Part of this was due to the > gaming community's enthusiasm for this product. > Ah... the oral tradition in Perth (often claimed to be the most isolated city in the world) is not as strong. For example, no one in Perth that is still involved in the gaming community appears to own any Wyrms Footnotes before Number 9. No one. That information is not known to anybody at all. The gaming community in Perth were certainly enthusiastic about RQ2, but still they owned very little of the published stuff. Stuff that is only passed on orally is not very reliable. And bear in mind that a major goal of RQ4 is to attract new players, and that was presumably a major goal of RQ3 as well - at which it failed. I think that part of the reason was that gaps in the available information were not apparent to Chaosium or much of the old RQ2 community, who already had a mass of Glorantha information, and could easily extrapolate RQ3 stats from RQ2 ones etc. However, I think that the gamers cut off from that source of RQ2 information - like those new players not part of a gaming community full of RQ2 players - had a frustrating lack of information. > The rest I could make up myself, with a little imagination. > And quite a bit of time. And you would end up with something rather different to someone elses version of Glorantha. But my point is that the rules are not the biggest issue - games with very bad rules can succeed with a flood of good quality support material. The converse is not true - look at games with nice rules but little support - like Bushido for example, or DragonQuest (good for the time) - they wither and die. RQ nearly did this to itself by not having enough support material. > The "contemplate and feel" of RQ3 and RQ4: > [runic ramblings deleted] > > I have already stated that some of the RQ3 shamantic rules are acceptable > and no doubt the RQIV shamantic material contains usefull concepts as > well. Do not misinterpret me, I am not a "Rune" fan but an admirer of > the "RuneQuest" background. I assert that RQ3 was more Basic Roleplaying > than RuneQuest. > The Rune comment was more in response to comments by others about Runes as a unifying concept for the magic system. The RQ3 shamanism was just an illustration of the many ways in which RQ3 improved the system - even though other parts where not improvements in retrospect. As to the "feel" of RQ2 and RQ3 - as I said, for me RQ2 was not a truly great game until Cults of Prax and Terror. Until then it ranked as a decent set of rules with an interesting but incomplete world. I played it, but I did not hold it in especially high regard. It was CoP and CoT that made it a great game. Of course, that all human characters where in Orlanth or Black Fang (I barely new the names of any others) was a bit of a disadvantage. My biggest gripe with RQ3 was that the great cults supplements failed to materialise. > Given that I judged RQ3 to be a mistake I believe that the magic system > should be encouraged to develop in a manner that is consistent with > the task of promoting that unique Gloranthan style of society. By the > term Gloranthan I mean mainly the area and culture described in the > RQ2 rule book, my core, published reference. > The RQ2 rules book is certainly no longer my core puclished reference. That honour would go to Genertela or King of Sartar, both of which I read for pleasure quite a bit. For RQ2 it would be Cults of Terror introduction, and Cults of Prax. I'm am sorry for some of the comments I have made which I now understand to be misplaced, but I am frankly amazed that you seem to be such a RQ2 fan, and yet you do not appear to have read these (or not all of them at any rate, from the Storm Bull reference above). I can only assume that you have never GMed a game, and have had some very good experiences as a player . > Note that I have refered to my judgement of RQ3 in the past tense. > > I liked the "contemplate and feel" of the RQ society as largely > suggested by rules and background within the RQ2 book. If the writers > of RQIV can come with something as satisfying then I believe it will > be successfull. I, and no doubt a large number of other role > players, will ultimately judge it against RQ2. > Actually, there where parts of the RQ2 society that I am glad where changed by RQ3, such as the enormous amnounts of cash that seemed to move about, and the rather mercantile capitalist impression that parts of the rules book gave, even though made more religious by later supplements. > I would love to assess RQIV and but I believe that it is unethical for > me to pull the RQIV 2nd draft by ftp and read it without permission of > the company involved. I have applied to playtest the latest release. > I am in agreement with you generally, though I have not heard actual much word from Oliver or Carl on how they feel about ftp availability (which was not how I received my copy). I will be interested to hear your comments on the next release. I think that it is different to both RQ2 and RQ3, largely in that while predominatly a set of rules rather than source like RQ3, much more care has been taken with the rules, and more attention has been paid to day to day activities and to non-combat activities than either. > Regards > > -- Guy Robinson -- > Regards, Dave Cake  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.21/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA11965; Thu, 13 Jan 94 07:29:09 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA10951; Thu, 13 Jan 94 08:26:38 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 13 Jan 94 8:29:03 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 13 Jan 94 8:26:32 EST From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Afore the Brave New RuneQuest arrives Date: Thu, 13 Jan 1994 05:23:50 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <5372383283A@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> This is a consensus building mail-note so we can find common ground before the real task of properly play-testing RQIV comes into play. To acheive that we'd better sharpen our electronic mail debating techniques, whether we individually get a copy to review or not. As it stands I believe that the latest version will be available on a more controlled basis than the 2nd version of RQIV and hence it will not be generally available via ftp. Carl and Oliver have explicitly stated this in several posts. Who ever receives the latest draft I think we can agree that RQ2 is rarely available, even second hand, and that RQ3 is passing from the shops. The last well-stocked role playing games shop I visited had a few supplements with the RQ3 style logo I seem to remember. When I visited a UK Games Workshop branch one of the staff spontaneously expressed his belief in the excellence of RuneQuest when I mentioned it in passing. I was tempted to ask him which version he played from but I refrained ... :-) In order to earn my posting of RQIV to play-test I'm going to visit this roleplaying shop at the weekend to see what is on the shelves there at the moment. This might provide us with a better reference in which to frame the later discussions. I'm starting to marshal the role-playing groups I plan to play-test with, flesh out the concepts for some Gloranthan-style cults, lay the ground work for designing a playable setting and plan some campaign threads to ensure there is no small element of play in the play-testing. Seeing how these bare bones translate into something playable, following the advice within RQIV should be revealing. If people want to talk about my pre-work I'd be more than willing to discuss it. Regards -- Guy Robinson --  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.21/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA04742; Thu, 13 Jan 94 11:49:08 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA28065; Thu, 13 Jan 94 12:46:52 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 13 Jan 94 12:49:02 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 13 Jan 94 12:46:39 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Afore the Brave New RuneQuest arrives Date: Thu, 13 Jan 1994 09:46:28 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <53B79757EEF@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Guy, When I first heard about RQ4, I started a brand new campaign to test it (after all, the character creation system is new & improved). Out of laziness, I set it in Pavis (because that's where the most published info is/was). But there's not enough info to really run Praxians or Pavisites, so I started characters as Grazers or Sartarites, and had them travel to Pavis (so it would all be new to their characters). David Dunham * Software Designer * Pensee Corporation Voice/Fax: 206 783 7404 * AppleLink: DDUNHAM * Internet: ddunham@radiomail.net "I say we should listen to the customers and give them what they want." "What they want is better products for free." --Scott Adams  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.21/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA15698; Fri, 14 Jan 94 01:17:10 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA05992; Fri, 14 Jan 94 02:15:02 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 14 Jan 94 2:17:00 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 14 Jan 94 2:14:58 EST From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: FW: Re: RQ2, RQ3 and Lessons to be Learnt Date: Thu, 13 Jan 94 22:12:33 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <8C0F94A4E@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Tim Westlake writes: > > To me, Glorantha is so much a part of the system as to be indivisable > from it. This is probably one reason why I didnt like RQIII as much, it > seem to generic and .... well, almost boring. Understand that, barring a short period when it first came out, I ALWAYS ran and played in original worlds with RQ. I don't think Glorantha's a bad world; but it was always the system that interested me. > > Errr .... OK, I'll beleive you on this :-). There were a number of local > modifications to the rules that we had made in our local games group > that to us made sense, some of which did appear in RQIII. 1) Full use of the percentile dice. It always struck me as silly to use a D100 and not really USE it. 2) Improved Shamanism. Shaman were always a sort of neither-fish-nor-fowlthing in RQ2. There were problems with them in RQ3, but at least they were integrated into the system. 3) Standardization of previous experience. The previous hodgepodge was really clunky, though it did benefit from not being as random as RQ3. These are just a couple of what I considered improvements. > > Oh! Oh! Unfair! Unfair! I may be a couch potatoe but I currently play in > 10 different games with widely differing rule sets (CyberPunk to D&D, > Runequest to Amber) and run 4 different systems myself. I do not > consider myself unable to change to a different system. I may need an > incentive (like it looks fun or I can see a good benefit in te change) > but I am still willing to try new systems. Not necessarily the same thing; many people find it easier to change games altogether than to tolerate changes IN the system they're familiar with. The song I hear on RQ3 just sounds a week bit too similar to the one I here from AD&D1 fans or pre-Fourth Edition Champions people. ------------------------------ shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) or qed!shadow The QED BBS -- (310)420-9327  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA14852; Thu, 20 Jan 94 05:07:20 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA17501; Thu, 20 Jan 94 06:06:07 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn