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.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 20 Jan 94 6:07:14 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 20 Jan 94 6:05:55 EST From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RQ2, RQ3 and Lessons to be Learnt Date: Fri, 14 Jan 1994 09:06:50 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: <9C9F3F6B00@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Disclaimer: I started RQ with the Games Workshop RQ3 edition, and only recently under great difficulties managed to obtain the almost full set of RQ2 publications, some of these even in the original. Dave Cake writes: [replying to Guy Robinson] >> 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. There were sensible points, e.g. real use of the D100 (instead of the D20x5 use of RQ2), less weight on dubious guilds when learning skills (in fact, to find a teacher was put into the domain of roleplaying, not rolplyaing for acception), and the opening into "generic" fantasy roleplaying was a plus for me, too. There were mediocre addings, like Fatigue, split hit locations (good idea, not so convincing execution IMHO), and then there were the changes to the magic system. > Actually, I would have thought that most of the changes that really > divide opinions where in the Magic Book, that is certainly my experience. Here the "bad" changes were the excessive weight of shamans in the description of Spirit Magic, the omission of Runelords (and a short summary to why and how the Divine Magic were changed the way they were, be it only on the RQ2->3 conversion leaflet), and the God Learnerish exclusivity of the three magic systems. The introduction of sorcery was a good thing, good enough to inspire the first edition of Ars Magica (at least that's my impression), but the versatility the system offered did not go far enough for the specialists (I think of spontaneous magic), or did go too far (nearly unlimited Intensity manipulation for the lowliest student). The enchanting rules and the introduction of all the necessary spirits were IMO clearly on the plus side. >> 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. I've just extracted all the references to the world from the RQ2 rulesbook, and what I found was a multitude of tantalising hints at a great world noone outside of oral tradition (see below) could really play on, because most of the information missed. I can only second Dave in this regard. > 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. Oral tradition in Kiel was non-existent, because it was me who built up the RuneQuest environment. I know about one little used copy of RQ1 in this city, which was disused in favor of the (then) richer background of AD&D (and lacking Glorantha enthusiasm). Glorantha background wasn't around here before the RQ3 modules Gods of Glorantha ad the genertela Box hit the market. They are still in the shelf, and I make sure the specialist dealer keeps well stocked in RQ. BTW, both the German and Engish versions. (Generally RQ has a good shelf presence in Germany, at least in the specialist stores; the problem is that the department stores cater only in the two or three mainstream systems (AD&D and two originally German ones), so that real newcomers are not aware of RQ's existence. > 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. Yes. If RQ4 is to be centered on Glorantha, then it **MUST** come with a reasonable introduction into the world, which a) creates the general feel, b) conveys enough information to start playing in one region of the GM's choice. An expanded version of the Genertela Player Book (not the tables of land of origin and occupation at the end, but the introductions into Hsunchen, Praxian, Orlanthi and western culture should be slightly expanded, and a Lunar/Solar culture, and maybe one eastern culture) should be added. >> 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. In fact, a _generic_ fantasy word with a few nams and elements from Glorantha - sorry to be mean, but I mean it. > 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. Don't forget the Pavis sets, still the most lively fantasy rpg setting I have read, not in little part due to the Cart Chaper Griselda story. You could read it and breath Pavis' air. > 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. The CoT introduction still is the most comprehensive picture of Glorantha I know. The four concepts make it clear that the Dragon Pass theist (Orlanthi) and theist-naturalist (Praxian) cultures are but two facets of the magics available there (e.g. the currently (1615-21 ST) extinct, but soon to be revived EWF dragon magics). Still almost no word has been lost about how the hybrid magics in the regions between the main philosphies look like. I think future supplements which deal with cultural wizardry in pure and hybrid form will manage to end the arguments abut whether sorcery (or in fact any magic besides Rune and Combat magic) has a place in Glorantha. -- 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 AA18207; Fri, 14 Jan 94 02:26:04 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA07278; Fri, 14 Jan 94 03:24:02 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 14 Jan 94 3:25:58 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 14 Jan 94 3:23:51 EST From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Afore the Brave New RuneQuest arrives Date: Fri, 14 Jan 1994 00:23:22 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: <9E70945AE@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >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). Working on the loose basis that the area mapped in RQ2 is the Gloranthan equivalent of the Holy Land, if only from the perspectives of the natives, then I plan to design a more temperate, distant land with their own pantheon of dieties. A kind of pagan British Isles which has developed into a vibrant, but not uncultured place, through the action of its Cults, its Shamans and the legacies of the God's actions during God-Time. The distance between the two would be such that although one cult might span both areas it not be without notable cultural variations. The changes in climate and weather will affect the people's perception of the nature of the Runes eg. the Sun is a ripener of crops, not a harsh punisher who may plot to burn the skin off your back. My plan is to design a set of dieties, cults and magical practises from which parallels may be drawn back to the more common RQ gods. I'll be attempting to get this material in at state so when I read the RQ4 draft and study the GM guidlines I'll be ready to detail a campaign ASAP. Regards -- Guy Robinson --  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.21/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA19376; Fri, 14 Jan 94 02:51:59 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA07607; Fri, 14 Jan 94 03:49:58 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 14 Jan 94 3:51:52 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 14 Jan 94 3:49:56 EST From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: FW: Re: RQ2, RQ3 and Lessons to be Learnt Date: Fri, 14 Jan 1994 00:49:32 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: Wayne Shaw writes: [about gaming "conservatism"] >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. If there is a crime which involves stressing role playing over commericial obedience then a lot of RQ2 fans are guilty. If someone publishes a new revision of a role playing game I think about it before I buy it. I primarily think about it from a role playing angle. AD&D2 and Fourth Edition Champions are not good examples because they did not change the whole nature of the game from a role playing angle. Both these games come largely without background. Failure to buy a game is not a sin on the part of the person who does not make the purchase, but an act of discretion for would-be buyer and some thing to learn from for the would-be vendor. Besides you are discussing this with 2 UK gamers. We are not the people singing the song you are hearing in America. Regards -- Guy Robinson --  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.21/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA27436; Fri, 14 Jan 94 07:56:03 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA16419; Fri, 14 Jan 94 08:53:55 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 14 Jan 94 8:55:49 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 14 Jan 94 8:53:49 EST From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: FW: Re: RQ2, RQ3 and Lessons to be Learnt Date: Fri, 14 Jan 94 05:04:40 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: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com writes: > > Failure to buy a game is not a sin on the part of the person who does not > make the purchase, but an act of discretion for would-be buyer and some > thing to learn from for the would-be vendor. It was an observation, not an accusation. > > Besides you are discussing this with 2 UK gamers. We are not the people > singing the song you are hearing in America. I've heard substantially the same kinds of complaints from Brits; I correspond with a number of people and frequently read at least one gaming apa with a number of British contributors. ------------------------------ 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 AA27364; Fri, 14 Jan 94 07:52:06 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA16255; Fri, 14 Jan 94 08:49:45 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 14 Jan 94 8:51:50 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 14 Jan 94 8:49:30 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Afore the Brave New RuneQuest arrives Date: Fri, 14 Jan 1994 05:49:27 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: >My plan is to design a set of dieties, cults and magical practises from >which parallels may be drawn back to the more common RQ gods. I'll be >attempting to get this material in at state so when I read the RQ4 draft >and study the GM guidlines I'll be ready to detail a campaign ASAP. There's plenty of room for new deities, but don't forget that Glorantha (or at least Genertela) is fully described in the boxed Glorantha set. 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 AA01638; Fri, 14 Jan 94 09:09:23 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA20529; Fri, 14 Jan 94 10:07:22 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 14 Jan 94 10:09:19 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 14 Jan 94 10:07:10 EST From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RQ2, RQ3 and Lessons to be Learnt Date: Fri, 14 Jan 1994 07:06:15 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: <10A0155069@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> [comment about RQIV being judged by RQ2's standards] >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. To cast the net a bit broader there are a lot of people who think a role playing game is something soley associated with computers. This would be an even larger audience for the publishers of RQIV to aim for. In my humble opinion chances are that established gamers will know RuneQuest by reputation and I postulate that this reputation was established by RQ2. After all the great difficulties of obtaining a copy of RQ2 could easy turn into a selling point for RQIV. Regards -- Guy Robinson --  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.21/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA21338; Fri, 14 Jan 94 20:41:31 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA03339; Fri, 14 Jan 94 21:39:14 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 14 Jan 94 21:41:25 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 14 Jan 94 21:39:07 EST From: gharris@Jade.Tufts.EDU To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Afore the Brave New RuneQuest arrives Date: Fri, 14 Jan 94 21:33:47 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: <1C28A333B9@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Well, currently the RQ group I play in is running a single campaign, a low-level Pavis campaign that was started with the RQ4 2.0 draft rules, with characters created by the GM from guidelines/descriptions given by the players at the second level (I think it's "Average") in the character creation rules. We had previously been playing in a higher powered Loskalmi campaign (for those anti-sorcery folks, it should be noted that some of Stafford's earliest work in Glorantha was about Prince Snodal and other Wizards of Loskalm. This is from the '60s, so keep in mind Glorantha doesn't just mean theistic Dragon Pass), with most of the characters starting as Hrestoli Knights, although there were a few pagans (excuse me, theists) as well. We're con sidering reviving this campaign, esp. if we get to playtest the next edition. This will allow us to simultaneously playtest at a high and low power level, as well as areas well- and poorly-supported, and give a crack at all three magic systems in the rules. Hopefully this wide scope of our gaming might make our group an attractive one for play-testing (I know Oliver's probably off to Baltimore, already, but I had to get that in). -- George W. Harris gharris@jade.tufts.edu Dept. of Mathematics Tufts University Days, I remember cities. Nights, I dream about a perfect place. Days, I dive by the wreck. Nights, I swin in the blue lagoon.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.21/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA21201; Sat, 15 Jan 94 04:25:41 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA11877; Sat, 15 Jan 94 05:23:25 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 15 Jan 94 5:25:28 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 15 Jan 94 5:23:18 EST From: David Cake To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RQ2, RQ3 and Lessons to be Learnt Date: Sat, 15 Jan 94 18:22:21 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: <23E5807452@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > > > [comment about RQIV being judged by RQ2's standards] > > To cast the net a bit broader there are a lot of people who think a > role playing game is something soley associated with computers. This > would be an even larger audience for the publishers of RQIV to aim for. > Well, TSR makes money from it by the pile. But AH and Chaosium have not got the resources, so unless someone knows a computer game company that is looking for a licensing option (and unless it is done by a professional games company it is probably not worth the effort). > In my humble opinion chances are that established gamers will know > RuneQuest by reputation and I postulate that this reputation was > established by RQ2. > I think that the market who are already aware of RQ2 are the ones that we should be aiming at only in the most fundamental way - by making a game that they (meaning we!) will enjoy playing, and consider good enough to buy. The RQ2 familar people are the ones who already know about RQ3 as well (wether they own it or not), and probably will casually check out RQ4 anyway, as long as it is marketed and advertised so that they are aware of it. The people who have never heard of RQ2 are the ones that we need to grab. The RQ2 players who do not own RQ3 can probably be brought 'back into the fold' simply by producing a really good game (and a strong Gloranthan influence won't hurt). > After all the great difficulties of obtaining a copy of RQ2 could easy > turn into a selling point for RQIV. > Didn't work for RQ3 that well. > Regards > > -- Guy Robinson -- > Cheers, Dave  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.21/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA07061; Sat, 15 Jan 94 13:23:00 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA23815; Sat, 15 Jan 94 14:20:40 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 15 Jan 94 14:22:51 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 15 Jan 94 14:20:25 EST From: Tim Westlake To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: FW: Re: Designing & Rescuing Magic Systems Date: Sat, 15 Jan 94 18:50 GMT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2CD9867123@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> hum, I think this one got lost somewhere, I never saw it on the mail so I am resending it. I wonder if this will put the cat amongst the pidgeons as much as the last one did...... >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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA23294; Mon, 17 Jan 94 04:02:41 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA13121; Mon, 17 Jan 94 04:59:06 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 17 Jan 94 5:02:29 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 17 Jan 94 4:58:57 EST From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RQ2, RQ3 and Lessons to be Learnt Date: Mon, 17 Jan 1994 01:58:35 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: <537F2F1A48@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> NB: one level of > for Dave Cake, two for my humble self >> To cast the net a bit broader there are a lot of people who think a >> role playing game is something soley associated with computers. This >> would be an even larger audience for the publishers of RQIV to aim for. >> >Well, TSR makes money from it by the pile. But AH and Chaosium have not got >the resources, so unless someone knows a computer game company that is >looking for a licensing option (and unless it is done by a professional >games company it is probably not worth the effort). I was not talking about translating RQIV into a computer game but about selling RQIV, the paper, social, role playing game, the players of Computer Games. Lets face it, it would be a lot healthier for them. Games Workshop reaches that market with table-top wargames in the UK. They sell expensive, but individually affordable for a teenager, metal figures and a rule book, for their parents to buy, which promotes the buying of even more metal figures. Imagine parents discovering that there was a game that ecouraged their children to reach levels of numeracy and literacy far above the standards that these war games promote. Thats not mentioning the development of social skills. The new release of Warhammer 40K sells at 30 quid. How did I find out? My step-son, aged 15, is Warhammer 40K fan who finds my harking back to the days when Games Workshop was a role playing company in the Games Workshop shops themselves embarrassing :-) That'll teach him for dragging me past honest vendors of more ethical material :-) :-) >I think that the market who are already aware of RQ2 are the ones that we >should be aiming at only in the most fundamental way - by making a game that >they (meaning we!) will enjoy playing, and consider good enough to buy. I'd like to voice complete agreemeent here, the best product should be released. A really good game will bring people back to the market place. >> After all the great difficulties of obtaining a copy of RQ2 could easy >> turn into a selling point for RQIV. > >Didn't work for RQ3 that well. I contend that RuneQuest 3 did not build that well from RQ2. Hence RQ3 did not appeal to those deprived of the RQ2 rules and background but aware of the nature of their contents. Anyway let's not labour this point (RQ2 vs RQ3) as we soon will have the task of comparing RQIV with the current market, our personal opinions and RuneQuest's diverged legacy. The word is that RQIV, latest draft, is closer in spirit to RQ2 than RQ3. This, I feel, is the right way to go. Time will tell, -- Guy Robinson --  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA26595; Mon, 17 Jan 94 06:18:02 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA18042; Mon, 17 Jan 94 07:14:13 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 17 Jan 94 7:17:57 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 17 Jan 94 7:14:07 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RQ2 RQ3 and Lessons to be Learnt Date: Mon, 17 Jan 1994 04:13:53 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: <55BFDB5506@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >The word is that RQIV, latest draft, is closer in spirit to RQ2 than RQ3. It's not a small booklet, the way RQ2 was. On the other hand, it's based on Glorantha. Having only flipped through it, it's a bit like a cross (in content) between RQ3 and Gods of Glorantha and the Players Book from Glorantha: Genertela. David Dunham * Software Designer * Pensee Corporation Voice/Fax: 206-783-7404 * AppleLink: DDUNHAM * Internet: ddunham@radiomail.net (on the road in Baltimore)  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA28218; Mon, 17 Jan 94 07:34:32 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA19806; Mon, 17 Jan 94 08:30:40 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 17 Jan 94 8:34:25 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 17 Jan 94 8:30:25 EST From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RQ2 RQ3 and Lessons to be Learnt Date: Mon, 17 Jan 1994 05:29:49 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: <5705802F35@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David Dunham writes: >It's not a small booklet, the way RQ2 was. On the other hand, it's based on >Glorantha. To risk a double entendre, size is not everything :-) >Having only flipped through it, it's a bit like a cross (in content) >between RQ3 and Gods of Glorantha and the Players Book from Glorantha: >Genertela. Are you talking about the RQIV, 4th revision or the "available via ftp" 2nd revision of RQIV? If it's the 4th revision how did you receive it? By post? At the RQ Con? Regards -- Guy Robinson --  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA12409; Tue, 18 Jan 94 02:41:39 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA13513; Tue, 18 Jan 94 03:37:30 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 18 Jan 94 3:41:32 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 18 Jan 94 3:37:25 EST From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Runes in RQ2 Reviewed Date: Tue, 18 Jan 1994 00:36:50 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: <6A24127A66@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> While I wait, in hope, for a copy of RQIV to review I thought I'd review the Runes in RQ2 as I was unable to reach a games shop last weekend (sigh) People have been stressing how hard it was to find a copy of RuneQuest 2 so I fell this could be relevent to any RQIV reviews. The Runes themselves are described in a chapter entitled Rune Magic. The chapter starts off describing the Runes in a flexible, ambigious manner from a number of viewpoints. This tone permiates this whole chapter. The Elemental Runes refelect one of the key strengths of RuneQuest, they reflect a cosmology not entirely enherited from the Greeks by Western Europe. As a student I researched Alchemy to give a talk to a student society and the Greek elemental decomposition I uncovered was Earth, Fire, Water and Air. The RuneQuest elemental division was less common. The Form Runes express the key forms within the Glorathan setting as in their descriptions they cover the Aldryami, the status of Dragon and the insidious nature of Chaos. The Condition Runes are effectively the markers of Runic status and they are described ina very terse but thought provoking manner. People might be interested to know that magician independent of cult ties are mentioned. The Power Runes are a excellent example of cultural ambiguity. Nearly every Rune bears an argument to why it was the first Rune! The Power Runes come in matched, opposing pairs. There is no good, no evil, just contrast. Within the descriptions of the Runes lies evidence of cultural relativism which is mainly based on Gods being strengthened by local whorship. If you cross reference the Elemental Rune for the Moon with the Time Line on page 7 of RuneQuest 2 you will see that the Red Goddess was born a mortal before she obtained immortality and became the Moon goddess. Hence the rules not that her Rune is too new and young to be recognised by many outside the Lunar Empire and hence is not potent there. The Runes are described almost as the medium for expressing devine power in Glorantha. Rune Cults, the term used in this chapter, are dedicated to the a God, any lesser associated Gods, and the Runes these Gods embody or express. There is also an excellent description of how everyone gains in a Rune Cult man and God alike, except prephaps for the lay members. Mastering a Rune is a very allegorical affair: Shamans are tied to the Spirit Rune, Rune Lords have proved their right to the Mastery Rune and Rune Priests have proved his affinity with the Magic Rune. The rules hint at other ways of gaining access of the Mastery and Magic Runes without development through a Rune Cult. The Runes do tie up to the Common Magic, the instance of which described in RQ2 is described as Battle Magic. Certain kinds of Battle magic can be associated with the Runes just as Rune Magic can be, Neither is associated explicitly though. The associated between Spirits and Runes is mentioned once but is scantly exploited elsewhere. It is noted that Spirits can percieve Mindlinks and Runic associations (page 40). This tends to support the some what scandalous view that Gods and Rune Cults are merely a phemenomena associated with the nature of Runes. Mind you this is RuneQuest and as I said as the begining the background is very pleasantly ambigious. A very rich environment for role playing indeed as the range of prespectives possible only serve to enrich the game. Regards -- Guy Robinson --  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA01712; Tue, 18 Jan 94 10:20:39 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA19812; Tue, 18 Jan 94 07:25:30 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 18 Jan 94 7:29:20 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 18 Jan 94 7:25:20 EST From: David Cake To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Runes in RQ2 Reviewed Date: Tue, 18 Jan 94 20:24:30 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: <6DF09A5022@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > > > While I wait, in hope, for a copy of RQIV to review I thought I'd review the > Runes in RQ2 as I was unable to reach a games shop last weekend (sigh) > > People have been stressing how hard it was to find a copy of RuneQuest 2 > so I fell this could be relevent to any RQIV reviews. > [general survey of Runes deleted] > Within the descriptions of the Runes lies evidence of cultural relativism > which is mainly based on Gods being strengthened by local whorship. > The same cultural relativism that Greg know uses to dethrone them from their completely central place (they are know one of several Runic systems, they are largely a God Learner invention, etc.). > If you cross reference the Elemental Rune for the Moon with the Time Line > on page 7 of RuneQuest 2 you will see that the Red Goddess was born a > mortal before she obtained immortality and became the Moon goddess. Hence > the rules not that her Rune is too new and young to be recognised by many > outside the Lunar Empire and hence is not potent there. > Well, the Gloranthan scholar in me has to point out the Blue Moon, old as most deities and older than many. But Gloranthan pedantry belongs on the daily not here so I'll shut up now :-) [bit about Rune cults deleted] > The Runes do tie up to the Common Magic, the instance of which described > in RQ2 is described as Battle Magic. Certain kinds of Battle magic can > be associated with the Runes just as Rune Magic can be, Neither is > associated explicitly though. > Well, the relationships are pretty damn vague for anything without the name of an element [Light, Fire, Dark] in its name. Certain cults have certain spells, but apart from the elemental spells they follow no coherent Runic line. And for that matter, the same goes for the majority of Rune spells - apart from the obviously elemental ones (such as elemental summoning or Sunspear) spells do not necessarily follow a Runic line. I mean, what Runes do extension, shield, dismiss elemental, and absorbtion come from in RQ2? Spirit spells are spells, and the majority of them are associated with the Magic Rune and no other, if you insist on Runic associations, and Rune magic comes from the nature of the religion - Runes help classify, but by no means define. In short, the Runic underpinnings of RQ2 magic are overstated. This is not to say that Runes are not of massive cultural importance - but they have damn little to do with the magic rules of RQ2, so lets not try and force them on RQ4. A good explanation of the Runes (and the RQ2 explanation is still the best, though now a little incomplete) should be in any explanation of Gloranthan magic in RQ4 - but I am not in favour of basing the RQ4 magic book just around the Runes. BTW, does anyone else think that the term Battle Magic was one of the things about RQ2 that we should forget about? Its not that I really like the term Spirit Magic, but Battle magic is wildly inappropriate in many cases (sure, Food Song, Detect Detection, and Glamour help me through pitched battles everyday :-)) but it is also reminescent of hack and slash, monster killing gaming - which reflects RQ2s age. Hmm, how do these soap boxes get under me :-) > The associated between Spirits and Runes is mentioned once but is scantly > exploited elsewhere. It is noted that Spirits can percieve Mindlinks and > Runic associations (page 40). This tends to support the some what > scandalous view that Gods and Rune Cults are merely a phemenomena > associated with the nature of Runes. > Maddeningly vague - and compatible with various completely different theories as well - personally, I think it supports the 'Runes as classification system' theory (I mean, who really thinks that you see little runes hoverin' round people, huh :-)) > Mind you this is RuneQuest and as I said as the begining the background is > very pleasantly ambigious. A very rich environment for role playing indeed > as the range of prespectives possible only serve to enrich the game. > Yep. I think we agree to disagree on the Runic point, OK. Obviously both of us are absolutely corect in our very different views, and neither one should be pushed in the rulesbook for RQ4. The discussions about gloranthan metaphysics will come, but eventually. I prefer to see less emphasis on Runes, and more on religion in society, and clear rules. > Regards > > -- Guy Robinson -- > Cheers Dave  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA16271; Tue, 18 Jan 94 13:10:40 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA11861; Tue, 18 Jan 94 14:02:16 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 18 Jan 94 14:10:24 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 18 Jan 94 14:02:00 EST From: "Loren J. Miller" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Runes in RQ2 Reviewed Date: 18 Jan 1994 13:59:13 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <748D6D032D@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> It's clear from everything I've heard Greg Stafford say that Runes are a classification system. They are not universal across Glorantha. The set we know is the Orlanthi set, and Solar peoples have a variant set, as do the Kraloreli, Malkioni, and Doraddi. In fact, if you are lucky enough to get a copy of "The Glorious Reascent of Yelm" you will see a picture of a God's Wall mural which shows pictures of about 100 Solar deities, each of which can be used as a Rune to describe the sphere of influence of that deity. It's a mistake to try to derive deep truths from the Runes unless you are actually trying to figger out how people on Glorantha tend to classify things. -- Loren  0,, *** EOOH *** Date: Tue, 18 Jan 1994 13:49-0600 Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA19585; Tue, 18 Jan 94 13:49:01 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA14784; Tue, 18 Jan 94 14:46:56 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 18 Jan 94 14:48:51 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 18 Jan 94 14:46:45 EST From: Tim Westlake To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RQ2 RQ3 and Lessons to be Learnt Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <754C401D8D@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> In-Reply-To: <55BFDB5506@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > >The word is that RQIV, latest draft, is closer in spirit to RQ2 than > RQ3. > > It's not a small booklet, the way RQ2 was. On the other hand, it's based on > Glorantha. > > Having only flipped through it, it's a bit like a cross (in content) > between RQ3 and Gods of Glorantha and the Players Book from Glorantha: > Genertela. > Yippie! Cant wait.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA24091; Tue, 18 Jan 94 23:43:54 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA15112; Wed, 19 Jan 94 00:41:47 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 19 Jan 94 0:43:47 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 19 Jan 94 0:41:35 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Elements and Runes Date: Tue, 18 Jan 1994 21:41:26 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: <7F366C712E@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >>In fact, if you are lucky enough to get a copy of "The Glorious >>Reascent of Yelm" you will see a picture of a God's Wall mural >>which shows pictures of about 100 Solar deities, each of which >>can be used as a Rune to describe the sphere of influence of that >>deity. > > I'll probably have to wait for publication to see it :-(. >Interesting statement about the hundred solar gods (about 100 or >exactly 100? I'd think the Dara Happans would prefer the century >of gods). Are any of them female? The Solar Court is 10 (all male); there are also 100 lesser deities (many female). Powers of 10 are apparently really important in Solar mythology-- the Dominion of Yelm was 100000 years, the Dominion of Antirius was 10000, Shargash's era was 1000 years, 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA20598; Wed, 19 Jan 94 10:18:18 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA05115; Wed, 19 Jan 94 11:14:22 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 19 Jan 94 11:18:07 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 19 Jan 94 11:13:58 EST From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Runes in RQ2 Reviewed Date: Wed, 19 Jan 1994 00:49:13 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: <89C0F74F95@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Loren Miller writes: >It's clear from everything I've heard Greg Stafford say that >Runes are a classification system. They are not universal across >Glorantha. The set we know is the Orlanthi set, and Solar peoples >have a variant set, as do the Kraloreli, Malkioni, and Doraddi. Thats fair enough as the RQ2 rules and the background material appear to cover only the Orlanthi area. As the myths and time lines within in RQ2 only covered that area then the the RQ2 map depicted either the holy lands of Glorantha or just the focus of local belief. >In fact, if you are lucky enough to get a copy of "The Glorious >Reascent of Yelm" you will see a picture of a God's Wall mural >which shows pictures of about 100 Solar deities, each of which >can be used as a Rune to describe the sphere of influence of that >deity. The RQ2 rules fully support the idea that the association of a Rune with a God is a matter of status and local worship. With strong local worship, the concepts embodied by the Rune are powerfull. If the Lunar Empire managed to assert a Rune then surely it is possible, within the same cosmology, for there to be countless others. >It's a mistake to try to derive deep truths from the Runes >unless you are actually trying to figger out how people on Glorantha >tend to classify things. Bullseye. The Runes themselves are valuable only in the RuneQuest role playing game for the preception of life that they encourage for the characters within the game. Even within the culture that has built it itself around the Orlanthi Runes their status is itself ambigious. This a good thing because I feel that the more ambigious the religious and mythological background to a game then the richer it is. Regards -- Guy Robinson --  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA20747; Wed, 19 Jan 94 10:21:17 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA05369; Wed, 19 Jan 94 11:18:11 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 19 Jan 94 11:20:57 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 19 Jan 94 11:16:36 EST From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Aside about Elements in Early Cultures Date: Wed, 19 Jan 1994 02:05:24 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: <89CC4E3FE4@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Graeme Lindsell writes: >Guy Robinson writes: >>The Elemental Runes refelect one of the key strengths of RuneQuest, they >>reflect a cosmology not entirely enherited from the Greeks by Western >>Europe. As a student I researched Alchemy to give a talk to a student >>society and the Greek elemental decomposition I uncovered was Earth, Fire, >>Water and Air. The RuneQuest elemental division was less common. > The Taoists have five elements I believe, the four Greek ones plus Void. >Similar to Glorantha before the Lunar Rune. Identifying the Moon as >an element is odd: earthly religions I've read about have treated it as a >sky god. I though I`d seperate this one out. First off the presence of the Lunar Rune is meant to jar with accepted elemental decompositions because the the Lunar Empire is in some ways depicted as something unnatural. The RQ2 rules are written largely from the perspective of the Orlanthi culture into which the Lunar Empre has territorial ambitions. Secondly the is the issue of real world elemental decomposition. The conventional Greek elemental decomposition was not the only one postulated by the Greeks. The Greeks had many view points and the existence of atoms, indivisable units of matters, where also conjectured. Re-reading a book on Greek philosophy this morning I read about someone who postulated the opposing forces of both Strife and Love in addition to the elements. Within the I-Ching six elements are described and each has associated with it the cultural Chinese views. This divison is Earth, Heaven, Wind/Wood, Water, Mountain and Fire. Taoist philosphy is, of course, just as diverse as it's Greek counter-part. In the Greek-flavoured fantasy of Glorantha Gregg appeared to revived a less common view of the elements, for there are many, and added another element to provide an almost unnatural contrast. The Elemental Runes taken in context with the rest of the Runes in the RQ2 successfully frames the culture of a strictly fantasy world. Regards -- Guy Robinson --  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA17048; Wed, 19 Jan 94 09:34:02 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA02671; Wed, 19 Jan 94 10:31:04 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 19 Jan 94 10:33:43 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 19 Jan 94 10:30:55 EST From: mabeyke@batman.b11.ingr.com (boris) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Elements and Runes Date: Wed, 19 Jan 94 9:30:49 CST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <890949147D@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Graeme A Lindsell writes: > Loren Miller writes: > >In fact, if you are lucky enough to get a copy of "The Glorious > >Reascent of Yelm" you will see a picture of a God's Wall mural > >which shows pictures of about 100 Solar deities, each of which > >can be used as a Rune to describe the sphere of influence of that > >deity. > > I'll probably have to wait for publication to see it :-(. > Interesting statement about the hundred solar gods (about 100 or > exactly 100? I'd think the Dara Happans would prefer the century > of gods). Are any of them female? I believe Greg is making it available through Wizard's Attic; you might give Chaosium a call to get the address, etc, if you don't have it. This is definately a pre-pub copy, made available out of the kindness of Greg's heart and his awareness of the insatiability of Glorantha fans. It is definately subject to change and may appear *very* differently in it's final published form, after the Lunar book is published. BTW, it was $25.00 at the con, so figure that plus shipping. > > Guy Robinson writes: > > >The Elemental Runes refelect one of the key strengths of RuneQuest, they > >reflect a cosmology not entirely enherited from the Greeks by Western > >Europe. As a student I researched Alchemy to give a talk to a student > >society and the Greek elemental decomposition I uncovered was Earth, Fire, > >Water and Air. The RuneQuest elemental division was less common. > > The Taoists have five elements I believe, the four Greek ones plus Void. > Similar to Glorantha before the Lunar Rune. Identifying the Moon as > an element is odd: earthly religions I've read about have treated it as a > sky god. > > I've heard that the Dara Happans only accept five elements: Darkness, > Earth, Water, Fire and Lunar: Air doesn't exist. From what I've heard > of the Glorious Re-ascent of Yelm I wonder if they really believe in the > elements in the same way the Theyalans do: the Orlanthi find the Elemental > Runes important because they basically worship two elements and fear the > other four. Since they formed the basis of RQ2 society we've always seen > most gods as based around the elements, the few exceptions like Humakt, > the Trickster and Uleria being very widepsread and independent gods. The elemental progression Darkness begetting Water begetting Earth Begetting Sky is mentioned. It's just that Sky is the first "pure" element, the others are impure and polluted. It appears the Dara Happans recognize those four elements; perhaps some of the less conservative ones will admit Moon, but Storm is certainly unrecognized. From a discussion I had with Greg at the con, the Lunars don't recognize Storm either, at least not universally. This is due both to the Dara Happan influence, and the fact that there is no Storm among the Young Elementals. > > To the Dara Happans the Sky seems to be everything: they may not see > it as an element but rather the home of the Gods, as all their gods > derive from there, and from there send their related gifts of life and > fire. ('Course, I'm probably spouting bullshit since I haven't seen > TGoY) They believe in other elemental deities; it's just that all that is pure and right and just is from the Sky. Lodril polluted himself by wallowing in the dirt, and all deities of the other elements are by nature base and impure. -- Boris Mikey, aka |"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to Maurice Beyke | strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then mabeyke@batman.b11.ingr.com| believe; if you wish to be a devotee of Intergraph doesn't want | truth, then inquire." my opinions. Nietzsche  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA23544; Wed, 19 Jan 94 10:54:25 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AB08015; Wed, 19 Jan 94 11:52:16 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 19 Jan 94 11:54:16 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 19 Jan 94 11:51:56 EST From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Runes in RQ2 Reviewed Date: Wed, 19 Jan 1994 08:23:25 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: <8A63060070@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Dave Cake writes: [my comments that Common and Rune Magic could be associated with RQ2 Runes] >Well, the relationships are pretty damn vague for anything without the >name of an element [Light, Fire, Dark] in its name. Certain cults have >certain spells, but apart from the elemental spells they follow no coherent >Runic line. [...] I mean, what >Runes do extension, shield, dismiss elemental, and absorbtion come from in >RQ2? Spirit spells are spells, and the majority of them are associated with >the Magic Rune and no other, if you insist on Runic associations, and Rune >magic comes from the nature of the religion - Runes help classify, but by no >means define. The fact that there can be no standard classification would not stop a Gloranthan scholar seeking to draw up a version. Especially if they are concepts used to learn magic or a means for mortal to translate magic. Is this what the God Learner concept you_ve mentioned is about? Anyway to provide examples the Mobility Rune could be associated with the spells that increase speed or Dexterity and the Stasis Rune could be associated with Glue or other spells that seek to impede movement or change. Yes, a lot would be associated with the Magic Rune. > In short, the Runic underpinnings of RQ2 magic are overstated. This is >not to say that Runes are not of massive cultural importance - but they have >damn little to do with the magic rules of RQ2, so lets not try and force them >on RQ4. A good explanation of the Runes (and the RQ2 explanation is still the >best, though now a little incomplete) should be in any explanation of >Gloranthan magic in RQ4 - but I am not in favour of basing the RQ4 magic >book just around the Runes. Along with an explanation of the Runes should be their *apparent* effect on the magic system. Although RQ2 *hinted* that Rune Magic was associated with certain Runes it did not define any of these associations. The alternative to the Runes is the kind of God classifications in RQ3 like Trickster, Agricultural and King of the Gods. Not as inspiring as a God associated with the Runes of Darkness, Fate and Statis in my books. > BTW, does anyone else think that the term Battle Magic was one of the >things about RQ2 that we should forget about? Common Magic is the term that I would prefer Spirit magic to move to. It defines the essential common nature of Battle Magic that I feel is important for RuneQuest society. Due to the Rune Cults you could almost claim that Spirit Magic has been domesticated. Battle Magic is appropriate to classify the magic used by those who live, and therefore usually die, by the sword. If magic goes broader than that purpose it might as well be called something else, although culturally the term Battle Magic may still linger. >> The associated between Spirits and Runes is mentioned once but is scantly >> exploited elsewhere. It is noted that Spirits can percieve Mindlinks and >> Runic associations (page 40). This tends to support the some what >> scandalous view that Gods and Rune Cults are merely a phemenomena >> associated with the nature of Runes. > >Maddeningly vague - and compatible with various completely different >theories as well - personally, I think it supports the 'Runes as classification >system' theory (I mean, who really thinks that you see little runes hoverin' >round people, huh :-)) Maddening vague? How about refreshingly flexible :-) I would see this to reflect that people are marked by the Runes as they use their concepts to translate, understand and use Magic. Moving away from what spirit sight actually looks like (local campaign colour issue) I guess that a spirit could spot that another spirit was marked by the Rune of Death in the same way us real world types could determine if someone looks like they have trained as Chartered Accountants. >Yep. I think we agree to disagree on the Runic point, OK. Obviously both of >us are absolutely corect in our very different views, and neither one should >be pushed in the rulesbook for RQ4. The discussions about gloranthan >metaphysics will come, but eventually. I prefer to see less emphasis on Runes, >and more on religion in society, and clear rules. I think we are actually capable of agreeing on the matter of Runes, well to a reasonable degree. I feel that readers of RQIV new to RQ should have RQ religion explained to them by explaining the Runic concept first as means to introduce the Gloranthan culture, religion and society. The requirements of clear rules and an ambigious and rich background need to be balanced. A point of difference between us might be that I would favour simple, effective and suitable rules over something overly generic. I may receieve my bone-fide copy of RQIV yet so I can debate these issues with you in the context of a common reference. Regards -- Guy Robinson --  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA24596; Tue, 18 Jan 94 19:18:00 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA04589; Tue, 18 Jan 94 20:15:51 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 18 Jan 94 20:17:52 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 18 Jan 94 20:15:35 EST From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Elements and Runes Date: Wed, 19 Jan 94 12:14:37 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: <7AC7552E3A@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Just a few reponses: Loren Miller writes: >The set we know is the Orlanthi set, and Solar peoples >have a variant set, as do the Kraloreli, Malkioni, and Doraddi. I thought that the Orlanthi and Malkioni sets are the same with the exception of the Law rune. If the theory that the Orlanthi runes are of God Learner origin is correct they should be very similar. I agree with the idea of rune as a classification >In fact, if you are lucky enough to get a copy of "The Glorious >Reascent of Yelm" you will see a picture of a God's Wall mural >which shows pictures of about 100 Solar deities, each of which >can be used as a Rune to describe the sphere of influence of that >deity. I'll probably have to wait for publication to see it :-(. Interesting statement about the hundred solar gods (about 100 or exactly 100? I'd think the Dara Happans would prefer the century of gods). Are any of them female? Guy Robinson writes: >The Elemental Runes refelect one of the key strengths of RuneQuest, they >reflect a cosmology not entirely enherited from the Greeks by Western >Europe. As a student I researched Alchemy to give a talk to a student >society and the Greek elemental decomposition I uncovered was Earth, Fire, >Water and Air. The RuneQuest elemental division was less common. The Taoists have five elements I believe, the four Greek ones plus Void. Similar to Glorantha before the Lunar Rune. Identifying the Moon as an element is odd: earthly religions I've read about have treated it as a sky god. I've heard that the Dara Happans only accept five elements: Darkness, Earth, Water, Fire and Lunar: Air doesn't exist. From what I've heard of the Glorious Re-ascent of Yelm I wonder if they really believe in the elements in the same way the Theyalans do: the Orlanthi find the Elemental Runes important because they basically worship two elements and fear the other four. Since they formed the basis of RQ2 society we've always seen most gods as based around the elements, the few exceptions like Humakt, the Trickster and Uleria being very widepsread and independent gods. To the Dara Happans the Sky seems to be everything: they may not see it as an element but rather the home of the Gods, as all their gods derive from there, and from there send their related gifts of life and fire. ('Course, I'm probably spouting bullshit since I haven't seen TGoY) Graeme Lindsell a.k.a Graeme.Lindsell@anu.edu.au  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA01349; Wed, 19 Jan 94 18:38:27 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA02599; Wed, 19 Jan 94 19:36:12 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 19 Jan 94 19:38:22 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 19 Jan 94 19:36:08 EST From: Peter Maranci To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: RuneQuest: Adventures In Glorantha Date: Wed, 19 Jan 1994 19:29:14 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <921FD75510@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Right. I must say that it was nice seeing so many RQ luminaries at RQ Con. I went there feeling a little hopeless and depressed about RQ, but the Con really re-sparked my interest and enthusiasm. Even though I *still* think Greg screwed my character over in _Home of the Bold_. 8^>} At first run-through _RQ:AiG_ looks great. Much more like a cross between RQ2 and RQ4 than anything else. This was definitely worth the wait, and certainly deserves to be published. I do have a few questions and points, though: 1) Does anyone have Oliver's email address? His old one doesn't work, and I have a bunch of specific comments to send to him. Kinda silly to be a playester when I can't give feedback! 8^>} 2) I noticed that Jack Dott was at RQ Con. He looked a bit harried, and I can understand why -- everyone there must have commented on how hard it was to find RQ material. A friend of mine remarked to him that the AH marketing people were idiots. Turns out my friend didn't realize who he was talking to! 8^>} Seriously, only one person I know thanked him at the Con. Probably all of us should think about dropping him a letter of thanks. It was pretty brave of him to show up... 3) Am I the only one whose copy of RQ:AiG lacks the appendices? I was interested in seeing the character sheet, conversion rules, and index. 4) Why is there no longer a longbow amongst the missiles? 5) The unified hit table is fine with me, but everyone else I know hates it. 6) Why do Sorcerers gain the Law Rune as they progress, as opposed to Priests and Shaman? 7) Is the plural of shaman 'shaman'? 8^>} More later, -->Pete ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Maranci Malden, Massachusetts pete@slough.mit.edu or rune@trystero.com or rune@ace.com Captain of the Bozztown Bashers -- Champion Trollball team at RQ Con '94!  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA24351; Wed, 19 Jan 94 21:46:01 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA08650; Wed, 19 Jan 94 22:43:52 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 19 Jan 94 22:45:54 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 19 Jan 94 22:43:44 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RuneQuest: Adventures In Glorantha Date: Wed, 19 Jan 1994 19:43:32 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: <95404C718B@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > 3) Am I the only one whose copy of RQ:AiG lacks the appendices? >I was interested in seeing the character sheet, conversion rules, and >index. I can mail anyone a character sheet. Email me your address. > 4) Why is there no longer a longbow amongst the missiles? I think only dragonewts use them in Glorantha. > 5) The unified hit table is fine with me, but everyone else I >know hates it. Because it's unified, or because it's new? > 6) Why do Sorcerers gain the Law Rune as they progress, as >opposed to Priests and Shaman? Because that's what sorcery's all about. > 7) Is the plural of shaman 'shaman'? 8^>} It's "shamans." That one irritated me, too. 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA28258; Wed, 19 Jan 94 22:56:30 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA10576; Wed, 19 Jan 94 23:54:25 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 19 Jan 94 23:56:20 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 19 Jan 94 23:54:17 EST From: Brent Krupp To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Discussing RQ4 on this list... Date: Wed, 19 Jan 1994 20:53:56 -0800 (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: <966D671053@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> The limited distribution of the latest draft and public nature of this list is a bit odd, and has been pointed out before. My question (to those in the know) is: if mailing costs are why the new draft is limited in ditribution, then can prospective additional recipients pay for said costs themselves? I just want a copy of the new draft, not a free ride, so if I pay for the cost of getting it to me, where is the problem? Brent  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA03760; Thu, 20 Jan 94 00:19:29 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA12637; Thu, 20 Jan 94 01:17:25 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 20 Jan 94 1:19:21 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 20 Jan 94 1:17:22 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RuneQuest: Adventures In Glorantha Date: Wed, 19 Jan 1994 22:17:08 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: <97CFE64AF7@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >> > 5) The unified hit table is fine with me, but everyone else I >> >know hates it. >> >> Because it's unified, or because it's new? > > I liked it when it was proposed on the list, but my GM (a very long >time player with a copy of RQ1) rejected it, because he'd memorized >the old ones. I suspect a lot of long time players may have the same >reaction I once upon a time proposed a separate missile hit location chart, and was pleased that it made it into RQ3. However, now I find it's just another complication, and prefer having a single chart. I don't know that the RQ4 chart is so much better than the RQ1/2 chart that it's worth switching. > A question for the authors of RQ4: given the deliberately limited >distribution of the new draft, do you want it dissected on this list? I came in late, but I saw the email address for the list written on a big piece of paper at the RQ4 seminar. 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA20202; Thu, 20 Jan 94 07:53:53 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA23531; Thu, 20 Jan 94 08:53:37 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 20 Jan 94 8:53:47 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 20 Jan 94 8:53:20 EST From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RuneQuest: Adventures In Glorantha Date: Thu, 20 Jan 1994 05:52:48 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: <9F69C12C52@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Graeme, > A question for the authors of RQ4: given the deliberately limited >distribution of the new draft, do you want it dissected on this list? I >haven't received a copy and can think of good reasons why you may not >want to send one to Australia, since you're paying the costs yourself, >but I'd like to hear what other people say and discuss it. Is this a >problem? My perception is that any contribution to the discussion of RQIV is welcome. Oliver and Carl are two official people I have seen post and I have seen them say nothing to the contary. The only risk they face by someone discussing and reading this list is that these people could reconstruct the game. But this is a risk also evident in the word of mouth recommendations that tend to support the sales of a game when it actually reaches the market. The limited distribution of RQIV I think is based partly on cost and partly on ensuring they actually receive feedback. The feed back issue is important because otherwise all they are doing is distributing the product at a knock-down price. Let`s face that this would hardly be fair. If you have been missed by the initial distribution I recommend you enter the debates in a constructive manner, chew the chud and display the willingness to communicate I think they are looking for. This not to say you have not already done so but I believe this is the way to approach the issue of `How do I become a play-tester for RQIV?`. If I do receive a copy I will make every effort to discuss RQIV and present results of play testing for discussion on this list. I think the varied spread of opinions will be constructive for the play testing discussion this list was created for. Has anyone who received a prior posting played a game yet? I wonder when the first RQIV, latest draft, play test will actually be posted here? Moreover is RuneQuest: Adventures in Glorantha the actual name for the RQIV, latest draft, product? Regards -- Guy Robinson --  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA21507; Thu, 20 Jan 94 08:30:52 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA24610; Thu, 20 Jan 94 09:30:41 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 20 Jan 94 9:30:45 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 20 Jan 94 9:30:36 EST From: Malcolm Cohen To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RuneQuest: Adventures In Glorantha Date: Thu, 20 Jan 94 14:29:37 WET Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: > > my GM (a very long > >time player with a copy of RQ1) rejected it, because he'd memorized > >the old ones. I suspect a lot of long time players may have the same > >reaction Obviously long-time players will fall into 3 broad camps: (1) will not buy RQ4 (2) will buy RQ4 and use the changes in it they like (3) will buy RQ4 and switch to it more-or-less completely I don't buy this "memorised the old ones" argument. - There are more hit charts than just the humanoid ones. - Anyone that fossilised will fall into category (1) anyway - they will not accept ANY revision of the system (on exactly the same grounds). - rejecting an improvement just because some old fogies won't use them is not valid; if you are revising the system, it will change, period. Having made the decision to revise the system implies that the "old fogey" argument has already been rejected. > I don't know that the RQ4 > chart is so much better than the RQ1/2 chart that it's worth switching. But from the point of view of the RQ3 player or the newbie there is no "switching" from RQ1/2 to be done; he just wants the "right" table. Given that there is to be only one table, IMO it should be the new one, i.e. my experience (in playing with it) is that it is a significant improvement (over using the RQ1/2 one). -- ...........................Malcolm Cohen, NAG Ltd., Oxford, U.K. (malcolm@nag.co.uk)  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA24348; Thu, 20 Jan 94 09:13:51 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA26384; Thu, 20 Jan 94 10:13:36 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 20 Jan 94 10:13:44 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 20 Jan 94 10:13:18 EST From: mabeyke@batman.b11.ingr.com (boris) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RuneQuest: Adventures In Glorantha, Char Sheet Date: Thu, 20 Jan 94 9:17:12 CST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: > > 3) Am I the only one whose copy of RQ:AiG lacks the appendices? > >I was interested in seeing the character sheet, conversion rules, and > >index. > > I can mail anyone a character sheet. Email me your address. > Sounds cool. I can be found at mabeyke@batman.b11.ingr.com -- Boris Mikey, aka |"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to Maurice Beyke | strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then mabeyke@batman.b11.ingr.com| believe; if you wish to be a devotee of Intergraph doesn't want | truth, then inquire." my opinions. Nietzsche  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA26332; Wed, 19 Jan 94 22:17:56 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA09529; Wed, 19 Jan 94 23:15:51 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 19 Jan 94 23:17:48 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 19 Jan 94 23:15:43 EST From: graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RuneQuest: Adventures In Glorantha Date: Thu, 20 Jan 94 15:14:45 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: <95C8CA56AF@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David Dunham writes in reply to someone I've lost: > > > 4) Why is there no longer a longbow amongst the missiles? > > I think only dragonewts use them in Glorantha. There was some discussion about this a few months ago on this list: the longbow is only used in Fronela, apparently because of the availability of the right woods. No other human culture of Genertela has the longbow, so it was dropped off the list. (All IMO and from memory, so don't take it as gospel) > > > 5) The unified hit table is fine with me, but everyone else I > >know hates it. > > Because it's unified, or because it's new? I liked it when it was proposed on the list, but my GM (a very long time player with a copy of RQ1) rejected it, because he'd memorized the old ones. I suspect a lot of long time players may have the same reaction > > David Dunham * Software Designer * Pensee Corporation > Voice/Fax: 206 783 7404 * AppleLink: DDUNHAM * Internet: ddunham@radiomail.net A question for the authors of RQ4: given the deliberately limited distribution of the new draft, do you want it dissected on this list? I haven't received a copy and can think of good reasons why you may not want to send one to Australia, since you're paying the costs yourself, but I'd like to hear what other people say and discuss it. Is this a problem? Graeme Lindsell a.k.a Graeme.Lindsell@anu.edu.au  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA11519; Thu, 20 Jan 94 17:31:01 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA19677; Thu, 20 Jan 94 18:27:03 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 20 Jan 94 18:30:50 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 20 Jan 94 18:27:03 EST From: Peter Maranci To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RQ:AiG Date: Thu, 20 Jan 1994 18:21:54 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: First, someone asked if RuneQuest: Adventures In Glorantha is the newest version of the RQ4 playtest rules. It is. Can anyone come up with a better short-name than RQ:AiG? There's no version number on this edition. David Dunham said: > I can mail anyone a character sheet. Email me your address. You already have my address, David -- it's in _The WIld Hunt_. Speaking of which, did you notice that _TWH_ is once again being listed in the magazine section of RQ4? Just another way in which RQ:AiG resembles RQ2 -- a very positive step, in my opinion. 8^>} Is this a character sheet of your own design, or the one that came with the rules? Not that your own sheet wouldn't be good (I know it would), but I'd like to be able to critique the official version. Likewise, the Index and Character Conversion rules are pretty much necessary to playtest the new rules properly. Since I'm supposed to make copies of the rules for several other playtesters, I need to get the complete set. Typical that I'd get a defective copy! 8^>} DD again: >> 4) Why is there no longer a longbow amongst the missiles? > I think only dragonewts use them in Glorantha. I must have missed that when I was overwhelmed by the sheer volume of the Daily. Thanks. Funny, I don't remember dragonewts using longbows from the old rules. >> 5) The unified hit table is fine with me, but everyone else I >>know hates it. > Because it's unified, or because it's new? I think because it's unified, but the argument got kind of heated and emotional. 8^>} >> 6) Why do Sorcerers gain the Law Rune as they progress, as >>opposed to Priests and Shaman? > Because that's what sorcery's all about. Where does it say that? I'm curious as to your source. Given Greg's description of Brithini sorcery as something that seemed very much like science, I could buy the idea -- but it seems to me that it should be spelled out and detailed more, perhaps. -->Pete ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Maranci Malden, Massachusetts pete@slough.mit.edu or rune@trystero.com or rune@ace.com Captain of the Bozztown Bashers -- Champion Trollball team at RQ Con '94!  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA12966; Thu, 20 Jan 94 17:47:42 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA20421; Thu, 20 Jan 94 18:47:22 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 20 Jan 94 18:47:29 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 20 Jan 94 18:47:12 EST From: JOVANOVIC@CUCCFA.CCC.COLUMBIA.EDU To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: RuneQuest: Adventures in Glorantha Date: Thu, 20 Jan 1994 18:47:25 -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: I was planning to send out individual notices, but may as well post this information here in the meantime. First off, feel free to post any comments you may have on the list - whether or not you have a copy of the draft - that's what the list is there for (thanks, Loren). However, if you have a set of comments that you want considered, please make sure you email me a copy as well, at "jovanovic@columbia.edu" - the volume of the RQ4 list can get high enough that we might miss comments there. To address some other comments: The official name of the product is currently RuneQuest: Adventures in Glorantha (RQ:AiG for short). Of course, other suggestions are welcome. The distribution of this draft is somewhat limited (distribution to a total of 50 playtest groups is planned) by time and cost. This draft is fully laid out, which makes electronic distribution inconvenient. The cost in time and money of xeroxing and mailing out a 200+ page manuscript is not insignificant. More importantly, as we're trying to get this out sometime around the middle of this year, we simply don't have the time to consider that many more playtest comments. As it is, we're close to the limit, and we'd rather go over and consider our playtester's comments carefully, rather than skim over a larger number of comments. I wish we could do even more, but we have to be realistic. As I mentioned before, I will try to publically post a 5 to 10 page summary of what is in the current draft, which should give those of you without a draft an idea as to its contents, and better understand the playtest discussions. For those of you that got the draft at RQ Con - I suspect I forgot to warn a few of you that the appendices (Character Sheet, Converting Characters and the Index) were missing - these will go out later. David Dunham has put together a character sheet which I recommend in the meantime. If you have suggestions or comments on what you'd like to see in a character sheet, feel free to send them as well. Finally, as a general topic for discussion, there are two points I would be interested in seeing people's opinions on. The two changes we've made to combat that probably seem the most different are switching to a combined melee/missile hit location chart and switching to a linear damage bonus system. We feel that these changes speed and simplify combat significantly, but we also don't want to alienate RQ2/RQIII players with them. Hit locations strike me as less of a problem, because you can simply use the RQIII melee/missile charts if you prefer. If we simply mention this as an option in the Character Conversion, Melee or Gamemaster sections, this seems to handle that problem. The linear damage bonus system addresses a number of playtester's complaints (daggers severing arms with a 1D4 damage bonus, punches killing people), and in our playtesting to date simplifies and speeds combat. We've found that most of our playtesters seem to prefer this system once they've tried it. However, we are concerned that at first glance, it may put off RQ2/RQIII players, or those concerned with compatibility with RQIII scenario packs (though conversion can be very simple, i.e. +1D4 is +1 or +2, each +1D6 is roughly +3). I've even considered including the old (die based) damage bonus chart to use as an optional rule. Any opinions, comments or suggestions here? Thanks again, Oliver  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA13960; Thu, 20 Jan 94 18:03:39 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA21019; Thu, 20 Jan 94 19:03:22 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 20 Jan 94 19:03:33 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 20 Jan 94 19:03:12 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RQ:AiG Date: Thu, 20 Jan 1994 16:03:02 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: > Is this a character sheet of your own design, or the one that >came with the rules? Not that your own sheet wouldn't be good (I know >it would), but I'd like to be able to critique the official version. >Likewise, the Index and Character Conversion rules are pretty much >necessary to playtest the new rules properly. Since I'm supposed to >make copies of the rules for several other playtesters, I need to get >the complete set. Typical that I'd get a defective copy! 8^>} It's a RQ4 character sheet of my own design. I've never seen an "official" one, and would like it to be mine. I didn't get appendices either; I doubt they exist yet. 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA11360; Thu, 20 Jan 94 22:22:13 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA23610; Thu, 20 Jan 94 20:00:47 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 20 Jan 94 20:00:56 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 20 Jan 94 20:00:45 EST From: burt@ptltd.com (Burton Choinski) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RuneQuest: Adventures in Glorantha Date: Thu, 20 Jan 94 20:00:27 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: If it is all layed out, how about a compressed application file? Or a postscript file compressed for mailing? -- Burton  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AB17462; Thu, 20 Jan 94 19:04:41 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA23829; Thu, 20 Jan 94 20:04:24 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 20 Jan 94 20:04:31 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 20 Jan 94 20:04:14 EST From: Mark Gagnon To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RQ:AiG Date: Thu, 20 Jan 1994 20:05:04 -0500 (EST) 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: "Curiosity killed the cat, etc..." I also would like to see a copy of the new RQ:AiG character sheet. Thanks in advance. Mark =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= On yonder hill, there stands a co', He's nae there no', he must ha'e shifted. --M. Kidd =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA21688; Thu, 20 Jan 94 20:21:59 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA26203; Thu, 20 Jan 94 21:21:40 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 20 Jan 94 21:21:52 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 20 Jan 94 21:21:35 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RuneQuest: Adventures in Glorantha Date: Thu, 20 Jan 1994 18:02:07 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: >If it is all layed out, how about a compressed application file? Or a >postscript file >compressed for mailing? It's hard to send out laid out files. That's why I'm mailing (not emailing) the character sheet. Not only would someone need to have the right application, they'd need to have the right fonts (both RQ:AiG and my character sheet use fonts not in any printer I know of). And given that it's 200 pages, how much do you think it would compress?  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA09396; Thu, 20 Jan 94 21:38:43 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA28407; Thu, 20 Jan 94 22:37:36 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 20 Jan 94 22:38:38 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 20 Jan 94 22:37:25 EST From: burt@ptltd.com (Burton Choinski) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RuneQuest: Adventures in Glorantha Date: Thu, 20 Jan 94 22:37:12 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: I don't need any fancy fonts. It can map to raw courier for all I care -- I just need text to look at and pick on. :) a PS file can compress down pretty good, depending on what it is on. If the document is on the a Mac, use stuffit on the text, then binhex it. -- Burton  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA09752; Thu, 20 Jan 94 21:45:49 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA28568; Thu, 20 Jan 94 22:45:34 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 20 Jan 94 22:45:42 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 20 Jan 94 22:45:31 EST From: David Cake To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RQ:AiG Date: Fri, 21 Jan 94 11:44:42 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: > > DD again: > >> 4) Why is there no longer a longbow amongst the missiles? > > I think only dragonewts use them in Glorantha. > > I must have missed that when I was overwhelmed by the sheer volume > of the Daily. Thanks. Funny, I don't remember dragonewts using longbows > from the old rules. > I have this feeling that Rathorelans use longbows as well. They certainly should be in the rules even if very few people use them, anyway (they put Melnibonean bone bows in the standard Elric! weapons table, and very sensibly too). The information about RQ2 Dragonnewts using longbows is not in the RQ2 rules, but appears in Wyrms Footnotes 14 (and in RQ3). > >> 5) The unified hit table is fine with me, but everyone else I > >>know hates it. > > Because it's unified, or because it's new? > > I think because it's unified, but the argument got kind of heated > and emotional. 8^>} > Actually I dislike the idea because it is old. I thought that the replacing the unified table of RQ2 with the two tables was a good idea. I am unconvinced about the step back. Similarly I welcomed the Easy/Medium/Hard skills rules, not because they were an innovation, but because they were a return to and an extension of the RQ2 skill rules (which had E/M/H for training, in effect, but not for experience). Personally loyalty to RQ2 or RQ3 is not really an issue, but I dislike the thought of losing good ideas from either system in the move to RQ4. > >> 6) Why do Sorcerers gain the Law Rune as they progress, as > >>opposed to Priests and Shaman? > > Because that's what sorcery's all about. > Ermm... it never really states it that directly, but it is a reasonable assumption. The Invisible God is one of the few gods with the Law Rune, though also Magic and Infinity. Personally, I think that sorcerers are associated with both Magic and Law, that shamans are associated with Magic and Spirit, and Priests with Magic and their cult runes. But that is just my speculation. I imagine Lhankor Mhy magic theorists probably argue about this sort of thing as well, ie, I think that there is no one true answer (but I guesssx everybody knows how I feel about the Runes :-) > Where does it say that? I'm curious as to your source. Given > Greg's description of Brithini sorcery as something that seemed very much > like science, I could buy the idea -- but it seems to me that it should > be spelled out and detailed more, perhaps. > Or not. While not necessarily a fan of Gregs inconsistency at all times, I am definately a strong believer in leaving many aspects of Glorantha open to controversy and debate. the fact that there is no single truth is one of the best aspects of Glorantha, to me. > -->Pete > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Peter Maranci Malden, Massachusetts > pete@slough.mit.edu or rune@trystero.com or rune@ace.com > Captain of the Bozztown Bashers -- Champion Trollball team at RQ Con '94! > >  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA11439; Thu, 20 Jan 94 22:24:28 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA29538; Thu, 20 Jan 94 23:24:17 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 20 Jan 94 23:24:23 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 20 Jan 94 23:24:06 EST From: David Cake To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Discussing RQ4 on this list... Date: Fri, 21 Jan 94 12:23:20 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: > > The limited distribution of the latest draft and public nature of this > list is a bit odd, and has been pointed out before. My question (to those > in the know) is: if mailing costs are why the new draft is limited in > ditribution, then can prospective additional recipients pay for said > costs themselves? I just want a copy of the new draft, not a free ride, > so if I pay for the cost of getting it to me, where is the problem? > I second this, and also would like to make the point that I am willing to help with postage costs even if I was to be sent one anyway, in support of the good work done by Oliver, Carl, etc. Just email me and I'll send some IRCs. I would certainly hate to miss out on a copy because I live somewhere (perth, Australia) that is expensive to mail too. > Brent > Cheers Dave Cake  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA11868; Thu, 20 Jan 94 22:36:57 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA29831; Thu, 20 Jan 94 23:36:46 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 20 Jan 94 23:36:52 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 20 Jan 94 23:36:38 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RuneQuest: Adventures in Glorantha Date: Thu, 20 Jan 1994 20:36:26 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: >Finally, as a general topic for discussion, there are two points I would >be interested in seeing people's opinions on. The two changes we've >made to combat that probably seem the most different are switching >to a combined melee/missile hit location chart and switching to a linear >damage bonus system. We feel that these changes speed and simplify >combat significantly, but we also don't want to alienate RQ2/RQIII >players with them. Here's another take on compatibility: there aren't all that many modules out there. Probably nobody has (or at least uses) more than 6 supplements which have stats? Given that you're setting things up to release more than 6 in the future, don't sweat it. I've been using RQ2/Borderlands while playtesting RQ4. Yes, the damage bonus and even the stats are wrong, but it's close enough when I want some quick Praxians the players will probably trounce with horse archery anyway. 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA12031; Thu, 20 Jan 94 22:40:18 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA29922; Thu, 20 Jan 94 23:40:06 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 20 Jan 94 23:40:12 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 20 Jan 94 23:39:57 EST From: Carl Fink To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: The current draft, yet again. Date: Thu, 20 Jan 1994 23:39:34 -0500 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: rune@trystero.com (Peter Maranczi) writes: R> 1) Does anyone have Oliver's email address? His old one doesn't >work, and I have a bunch of specific comments to send to him. Kinda silly >to be a playester when I can't give feedback! 8^>} He's now jovanovic@columbia.edu. R> 3) Am I the only one whose copy of RQ:AiG lacks the appendices? >I was interested in seeing the character sheet, conversion rules, and >index. They don't exist yet. Give us a couple of weeks. There won't be an index until the whole manuscript exists. R> 5) The unified hit table is fine with me, but everyone else I >know hates it. We'd like to hear more opinions on this, but basically it was a way to speed up combat. People who played RQ2 learned the hit table and never had to look at it again -- this didn't happen as much in RQ3 because there were two tables. R> 6) Why do Sorcerers gain the Law Rune as they progress, as >opposed to Priests and Shaman? Because sorcery is manipulating the Natural Law. R> 7) Is the plural of shaman 'shaman'? 8^>} No. Tell Oliver that. I've been trying to convince him to use "shamans" for months now, but he won't listen to me. :-) David Dunham writes: >I came in late, but I saw the email address for the list written on a big >piece of paper at the RQ4 seminar. You can read my writing! David, you're one of a select group. (It was also in the convention booklet.) ============================================================================ Belief in the precognitive powers of an Asian pastry is really no wackier than belief in ESP, subluxation, or astrology, but you just don't hear anyone preaching Scientific Cookie-ism. --Penn and Teller Carl Fink carlf@panix.com CARL.FINK (GEnie)  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA20015; Fri, 21 Jan 94 00:23:49 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA02880; Fri, 21 Jan 94 01:23:34 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 21 Jan 94 1:23:43 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 21 Jan 94 1:23:17 EST From: Peter Maranci To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: RQ: Glorantha Date: Fri, 21 Jan 1994 00:25:14 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: Regarding Oliver's comments: I'm very glad to hear that the limitation of the distribution of RQ:AiG is based on limited resources rather than eliteism. My fears of an RQ elite were mostly dispelled by the friendly folk at RQ Con, but a little confirmation never hurts. 8^>} At this point I'm less prone to carp over details that I consider small. RQ:AiG is so much better than both RQ3 and the previous edition of RQ4 that many sins could easily be forgiven -- and there don't seem to be too many sins. If RQ:AiG were to be published as is I wouldn't worry about RQ's future -- depending on the art of the finished product, of course. Of course I still have opinions. One thing that I still would like to know is whether or not reality testing is a basis for RQ. Of course there's no need to go to extremes, but it would be helpful to know if I should judge the hit location table (for example) based on how often I get hit in the arms or legs in LARP combat. The flat-rate damage bonuses bothered me because of the similarity to AD&D (tm). On reflection, though, I can live with them. But someone (I think it was George Harris) remarked that this would screw up Crush. Referring to the book I see that the new rules cover this option rather well. About optional rules: I always liked the way that the optional rules were given in the back of RQ2. When such rules are scattered through the text the purpose of making them optional -- i.e. streamlining the main body of rules -- is defeated. On the other hand, the inclusion of optional Crush/Impale/Slash in the Combat section seems to work well. The more I read this version, the more I like it. -->Pete ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Maranci Malden, Massachusetts pete@slough.mit.edu or rune@trystero.com or rune@ace.com Captain, Bozztown Bashers -- Champion Trollball team of RuneQuest Con 1994!  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA20023; Fri, 21 Jan 94 00:23:57 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA02887; Fri, 21 Jan 94 01:23:45 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 21 Jan 94 1:23:50 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 21 Jan 94 1:23:38 EST From: Peter Maranci To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RQ:AiG Date: Fri, 21 Jan 1994 00:27:31 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: Re David Dunham's character sheet: I'd love to see your sheet. Is it by any chance based on the linear tracking sheet (the Mk. 4, I believe?). -->Pete ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Maranci Malden, Massachusetts pete@slough.mit.edu or rune@trystero.com or rune@ace.com Captain, Bozztown Bashers -- Champion Trollball team of RuneQuest Con 1994!  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA20036; Fri, 21 Jan 94 00:24:20 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA02895; Fri, 21 Jan 94 01:24:08 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 21 Jan 94 1:24:14 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 21 Jan 94 1:23:59 EST From: Peter Maranci To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: RQ:Glorantha Character Sheet Date: Fri, 21 Jan 1994 00:31:44 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: David Dunham wrote: > It's hard to send out laid out files. That's why I'm mailing > (not emailing) the character sheet. Why don't you print it in _The Wild Hunt_? That would boost sales! 8^>} Do you have any other sheets worked up yet for RQ:Glorantha? Is this a two-sided sheet or one-sided? Is it generalized or does it have a bias towards one style of magic (a problem I've faced with my own sheets)? -->Pete ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Maranci Malden, Massachusetts pete@slough.mit.edu or rune@trystero.com or rune@ace.com Captain, Bozztown Bashers -- Champion Trollball team of RuneQuest Con 1994!  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA20590; Fri, 21 Jan 94 00:37:34 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA03081; Fri, 21 Jan 94 01:37:23 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 21 Jan 94 1:37:28 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 21 Jan 94 1:37:11 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: The current draft, yet again & controversy Date: Thu, 20 Jan 1994 22:37:01 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: >R> 7) Is the plural of shaman 'shaman'? 8^>} > No. Tell Oliver that. I've been trying to convince him to use >"shamans" for months now, but he won't listen to me. :-) Someone's going to proofread this at some point, right? Someone who (not "someone that") knows that "who" is used when you refer to people? :-) BTW, I sent my character sheet to Oliver, in case you still have mailings to do and would like to include something. (I know there's been some debate over sticking with the skill category-based sheet, instead of the new and improved alphabetic sheet). Speaking of controversy, here are some points which could possibly be discussed even by people who haven't seen the rules: I think it's a bad idea to add to Ceremony, Enchant, and Summon. I understand that they probably are slightly different, but it's not likely to come up in average play (except perhaps for Ceremony), yet it's a complexity that all spell-users have to deal with. Stick with the simple case (or else make the division optional). I understand that you want to make Craft/Farming a more practical skill than Lore/Plant. You're trying to separate Doing from Knowing. But you can't Do if you don't Know. And I think Craft/Farming (and Craft/Herding) is a bad idea for several reasons: a) You can have farmers (or herders) who know nothing about what they're doing (they have no Plant Lore or Animal Lore). b) You have two largely overlapping skills. Which do you use when you want to decide what to plant? Craft/Farming or Plant Lore (read its description)? c) You're creating skill dilution -- too many skills to spread points between. d) You're incompatible with RQ3. No RQ3 farmer can farm. (Yes, your conversion rules will probably cover this, but they wouldn't be necessary). e) Not all money-making skills are Crafts (e.g. Bargain and Evaluate). I think you should choose one or the other. Given that farming _is_ a practical skill, drop Plant Lore (and Animal Lore). This of course has problems because then can't really have Horse Lore...but Horse Lore is really a rather practical matter, I imagine (like knowing how to help mares give birth), so it'd probably be a Doing skill, like Craft/Horse Herding. I think we need a new term, so you can move practical lores like Animal Lore and Plant Lore into Reasoning skills that can get a check, but leave Glorantha Lore or World Lore (nobody uses the skill to change the weather) as Knowledge skills which can't be improved from experience. 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA20763; Fri, 21 Jan 94 00:44:08 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA03238; Fri, 21 Jan 94 01:43:56 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 21 Jan 94 1:44:01 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 21 Jan 94 1:43:50 EST From: "Loren J. Miller" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Loren's comments on RQ:AiG, I of II Date: 21 Jan 1994 01:40:59 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: Comments on _RuneQuest: Adventures in Glorantha_ manuscript after a first reading. by Loren Miller Part I of II I think if this were software the version number would be RQ4b4 so that's what I'll use for shorthand. The rules are quite a bit different from RQ4b2 (I believe a beta version went missing in the middle) but the ideas are much the same. I haven't yet played this draft (that'd be damn fast, eh?), but I played with the previous drafts and this one answers many of the issues that I and the other simplicity-hounds (e.g. Nick Brooke and David Hall) raised with them. All in all, it is quite usable as is, but as you can see from the number of my comments I'd still want a few changes here and there, with the biggies being changes in terminology. INTRODUCTION I like it, but it seems odd to see this huge essay (14 pp of 10 point Times) on Glorantha, including a bibliography, in the chapter that is supposed to entice new readers to buy the book. I made the same error in the 1st draft of my own book, so I'm sensitive to it. The essay itself is terrific if the reader has already committed to Glorantha (bravo!), but I think that the message of an INTRODUCTION should be, "This Game Is FUN. Buy It," rather than "This game is like studying history." Keep the Glorantha essay and all the other stuff, but put it in its own chapter; chapter 15 should have all the deep Glorantha info, not just part of it. That said, it wouldn't hurt to start RQ4 with an *brief* overview of Glorantha (no more than 2 pages) like that in the beginning of RQ2. CREATING AN ADVENTURER Everything looks nice. Still, as you may have suspected, I have a few comments. Random Method of Character Creation Do you really want to make "4d6 keep the top 3d6 as in AD&Dv1" the standard method of rolling characters? I think it should be optional, as with all the other methods presented. IMO the standard method should be to roll the characteristics straight, as we RQers have always done. Bypass the trap of stat inflation. Appeal I really appreciate APPeal as a replacement for APPearance. And it's cool that the RQ3 fogies who prefer appearance won't have to change their character sheets. The change, however, may require a corresponding change in the point value of APP in the character creation process. In RQ3, POW took the place of CHA in quite a few areas and APP was basically worthless, but with APP now standing for Appeal and much closer in spirit to RQ2 CHA than to RQ3 APP, it might be worth more than 1/2 point per point of APP. This question should be resolved with the playtest. Let's keep it in mind. Abbreviations I am not a big fan of abbreviating and anagrammatizing everything. Sometimes it has its place, but to my mind there are too many abbreviations here. HP, MP and SR make for a sufficient quantity of abbreviations. They're probably too many. We don't need AP, DB, HL, HT and MV too (Armor, Damage Bonus, Hit Points per Location, Hit Location Table, and Move). The Hero system, Rolemaster and Dangerous Journeys have a corner on the Abbreviation-heavy school of RolePlaying, let's not try to beat them on their own turf. OK? Same with later obscurities such as the EWF. IMHO. FYI. SOL. AWOL. FWIW. Battle Magic vs Spirit Magic The manuscript is inconsistent in its terminology. Sometimes you see it called Battle Magic, and sometimes it's called Spirit Magic. This doesn't only happen in Chapter 2, but that's where it starts. Personally I prefer to call it Spirit Magic on the pretext that spirits are the sources of the spells. Battle Magic gives the impression that this type of magic is only used in warfare and that it's the only magic used in warfare, and that is not true. Sorcery and Divine Magic are used in battle too. Anyway, choose one term and stick with it. Adventurer Culture/Profession Tables Excellent, excellent, excellent! Three cheers for these sections, which should make starting campaigns about a bajillion (one bazillion jillions) times easier than it has been in earlier editions. It will also help a LOT with us poor GMs who have to make up NPCs on the fly. You say Hurrah and I say Hooray! By the way, could we also have a section for Pent/Grazelands horse- riding nomads? They're as important in the Dragon Pass region as the nomads of Prax/The Wastes. I know they've been ignored in previous versions of RQ, but there are some traditions we don't need to carry on. GAME MECHANICS For the most part this doesn't change all that much from the earlier drafts and earlier versions. This is a GOOD thing. I have very few comments. Skill versus Skill If we can possibly remove the additional die roll in this section let's do it. How about we use the rule given in Sun County and the other recent RQ3 publications? If two characters use skills against each other and both succeed, then whoever rolled lower wins. This keeps the integrity of the RQ meta-rule that "low is good" better than adopting the pendragon-style "highest success wins" rule, and to be frank I'd rather have a quick, consistent and reasonable rule than a perfect rule with extra die rolling and a table consultation. List of Abbreviations (on p.51) Again, is this really necessary? Does RQ need this many abbreviations in the rules book? Remember that every important abbreviation in a game makes learning the game that much harder. If you replaced this with a "list of key concepts" I'd be much happier. SKILLS The chapter is excellent, but some of the language is confusing. Since this is the kind of thing that Editors are normally hired to fix I'll leave it to the editor. The various LORES are still pretty funny, though. Think about replacing some of them with LORES. TIME AND LEARNING I'm happy that the rules allow the GM to decide the relative importance of Experience, Training and Research, rather than forcing one interpretation or the other on things. I had been perfectly happy with the RQ2 balance which made Experience a lot more important than the others but now realize that other people might want things to work differently. Earlier drafts of RQ4 went too far in the other direction (for me, at least). The current system allows the GM to tune advancement as desired. Very good. Intelligence Training This isn't mentioned in the chapter, and Chapter 2 says that such training is impossible. I don't believe it though. "Everybody knows" that if you read, study, argue, practice logic, play chess and roleplaying games, and do all that other smarty- pants stuff then you will get smarter, more intelligent. That's part of our common human belief system (aka mythology). In a game that is supposed to represent mythic reality shouldn't it be possible to increase the INT stat? After all, we're not talking about IQ scores here, but about a combination of wisdom and reasoning, both of which respond to study. Right? COMBAT I'm still skeptical of the new combat phase structure, but it's a lot better than the move by SR rules in RQ3 (since 2 movement phases are better than 10) so I'll give it a try. It also appears to be aimed at those who play out their battles with miniature figures on a battleboard, and I don't play that way. Try to keep in mind that not all RQers collect, paint, and use miniature figures. Special and Critical Hits Clarify that double damage only applies to the base weapon damage, not to damage bonus or magical damage bonus. One sentence is enough to clarify this, and will save a lot of hassles down the road. Optional Effects of Special Hits You might as well generalize this section. In addition to Crushing, Impaling, and Slashing weapons you could equally well characterize other weapons as Entangling (whip, flail, lasso, bolos, etc) and Tripping (staff, spear butt, etc) weapons. Why not consolidate those other special rules into this section? While you're at it you could include all the Special Combat Tactics skills here, and just note which ones require distinct training. Shield Coverage IMO, if you hold a shield in front of a location or three you should benefit from all its Armor, not just half. What, is it thinner if you use it that way? Is it more realistic? More fun? Damage to Locations Given the lowered weapon damages can we reduce the damage required to cut off a limb? I know that limb-hacking was unrealistically easy in RQ2 and became somewhat of a joke (with Gimpy's Tavern, etc) but the most recent RQ4 rules have made it well-nigh impossible to cut off an arm or leg, or a head for that matter, and that's an aspect of RQ that I really-really-really enjoy. Don't ask why, it's probably some deep-rooted psychological trauma. But in any case, let's allow for a few more flying limbs than at present. Please?! Weapons Tables These are quite good. It's hard to imagine improvements in the weapons tables, but these manage it. To be specific, I like the Category/Group distinction and the percentage relationships between similar weapons. One thing seems odd, though. Are sling stones and bullets really impaling weapons as implied by the note at the bottom of that table? Also, since bolos are used by the Bird-Lizard-riding pygmies of Prax, shouldn't they be included on the weapons tables? I thought only outlandish weapons were to be excluded from the main weapons tables. BTW, have you thought about including comprehensive weapon and armor tables in an appendix, with all the outlandish items that would never be found in a Manirian or Lunar campaign but are a necessary part of a world-spanning campaign or one set on another game-world? Armor Table Is it necessary to mention that the various metal armors are made of Bronze? You don't mention that all the weapons are made of Bronze, yet it's equally true. They may be bronze in Glorantha, but that is *assumed* in Glorantha, and it makes the table impossible to use as-is on other game-worlds. While we rightly want to emphasize Glorantha, we should not create additional barriers against those who would use RQ4 with other worlds. Spirit Combat It's very nice that the rules for Spirit Combat can be kept to one page. Would it be possible to describe a simplified version of the Physical Combat rules in one page? Note, this is not the question of an illuminated riddler, it's a real question. Knockback (90) Why not simplify the rule to this? "If an attack does the foe's SIZ or more in damage the attacker can choose to knock the foe back. The foe must roll against DEXx5, with failure meaning it loses its balance. Each additional 10 points of damage over the foe's SIZ moves the foe back 1 meter and reduces the DEX multiplier by 1. An attack doing the foe's SIZ+10 to SIZ+19 would knock it back 1 meter and force it to roll DEXx4 or less to avoid falling; damage from SIZ+20 to SIZ+29 would knockback 2 meters and require a DEXx3 roll, and so on. Armor and parries have no effect on knockback, though armor will absorb its share of the incidental damage (scrapes and buffets, etc) suffered as a consequence of being knocked back." Mounted Combat (91) The combat summary says that mounted combatants are at -10 to attack skill, but it doesn't say anything about it here. Personally, I think that anyone who has enough Ride skill to use his full attack skill should not be penalized, and would remove that line from the combat modifier summary, but if the summary is right then you should mention the modifier in this section. Surprise (91) Where are the rules for getting surprised? There should be a pointer in this section. 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA20793; Fri, 21 Jan 94 00:45:02 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA03260; Fri, 21 Jan 94 01:44:47 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 21 Jan 94 1:44:52 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 21 Jan 94 1:44:41 EST From: "Loren J. Miller" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Loren's comments on RQ:AiG, II of II Date: 21 Jan 1994 01:41:51 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: Comments on _RuneQuest: Adventures in Glorantha_ manuscript after a first reading. by Loren Miller Part II of II ECONOMICS Could this have a less forbidding name? How about "Money and How to Spend It"? I have yet to find an indifference curve in this chapter, but from the name I suspect it's in here somewhere. :-) By the way, the price tables with the availability column are new and very useful and deserve a mention. THE WORLD OF MAGIC I'm not sure about the title of this chapter either. How about "Magic Overview" instead, or something else that communicates that this chapter presents universal mechanics for use with all the magic systems in Glorantha? This chapter should also be broken up into a number of smaller chapters, as described below. Apparent Effects of Magic (109-111) Excellent! This is the single greatest innovation in the magic rules, and it is even usable outside of Glorantha. Magic Items and Enchantments and so on These belong in their own chapter, which should follow all the magic systems. By the way, is there any description of finely made weapons somewhere? This sort of chapter would be a good place for such a description. Battle Magic (117) This belongs in its own chapter, and if we're taking votes I think it should be called Spirit Magic. [A spirit magic chapter exists, but it describes shamans and is thus misnamed.] DIVINE MAGIC This has changed little from previous versions, except for thumbnail descriptions of a bunch of cults. I like it a lot. Duties of Initiates, Priests, Acolytes, Rune Lords, etc... I would like to see a distinction between those duties that are required by the god and those that are required by the flock and the cult hierarchy. Those duties assigned by the god must be followed on pain of falling into inactivity or sacrilege. Those duties assigned by the hierarchy must be followed on pain of being called to account by cult superiors. Attendance at High Holy Days would be an example of the first sort of duty, as would be Not-Initiating-into-Enemy-Cults. Tithes would be an example of the second sort of duty. Furthermore with tithes, especially with rune-levels, either you tithe a percentage of your time to a cult or a percentage of your income, but not both. Otherwise it gets to where a rune level is tithing 99% of all his time/money. Rune Lords The name Rune Lord reflects a RQ2-style emphasis of runes over deities. How about calling them Masters instead? The rune- fans will like it because it echoes the Mastery rune which "runelords" embody, and I like it because it implies the major distinction between Priests and Masters, that the Priest lives mythically by repeating the god's actions in ritual and the Master lives mythically by perfecting those abilities taught by the god. Religions (134-143) You list the pantheons common to Maniria and Peloria in thumbnail format. Excellent! If you're taking votes, I vote that you add Yara Aranis (the Reaching Moon) to the thumbnails of the Lunar pantheon. She's an important enemy god for all those who oppose Lunar expansion, and especially for anybody who rides a horse (e.g. Pentans and Grazelanders). Yes, I just played a Grazelands scenario where seven of us ran up against *one* of those Reaching Moon witches, and she was bad news! Also, shouldn't Horned Man and/or Daka Fal be part of the Praxian pantheon? I want my ancestor worship! [Okay, I found Daka Fal in the shamanism chapter, but at least you should point it out here. Plus the summon ancestor spells are missing.] Extension spell (146) Extension and extended spells cannot be regained until they expire. Good call. SPIRIT MAGIC Spirit Magic should have its own chapter, but this chapter is all about Shamans, not about Spirit Magic. Call the chapter SHAMANS instead. Take the sections of this chapter that describe spirit magic and put it in a spirit magic chapter, and put the shaman stuff in the shaman chapter. Shamanic Abilities I appreciate the way that this differentiates between different types of shamans. But the tables and the "Level" system (there's that damn L-word) to gain those abilities smack of game- balance (and they "feel" like D&D). Please, let's keep RQ free of new rules systems. For instance, limit the shamanic abilities by shamanic tradition as done currently, and make each shaman ability a "shamanic skill" where the skill rating dictates the effectiveness of the ability (just like sorcerous/wizardly manipulations). You could even make fetch POW a bonus for shamanic skills, and it would be pretty close to the present system. I'm not just trying to get away from the L-word, I'm trying to keep the system RQ-like. Shamanic Extended Duration So far both Divine magicians and Sorcerors, er Wizards, can extend the duration of their spells, but Shamans can't. This isn't fair. Sheng Seleris should be able to cast a long-duration spell without using his unique Hero abilities. I suggest that there be an additional Shamanic ability that ties a trapped spirit to a spell for a long period of time, and that a spirit thus used should still occupy its space in the fetch's spirit traps until the shaman frees it from its task. SORCERY Consider changing the name of this chapter and the name of the magic system with it. Why? It has become increasingly apparent to me that Gloranthan speakers (and those in the real world, for that matter) use "Sorcery" to identify any form of inimical or outlandish magic. If a Loskalmi farmer had been attacked by an Orlanthi Wind Voice he would identify the priest as a "sorceror" and his magic as "sorcery." Conversely, the village wonder-worker is known locally as a "wise one" or "wizard," and his/her good works as "lawful magic" or "wizardry" or something more along those lines. To maintain and grow the trend which changed the name of battle magic to spirit magic I recommend that we change the name of sorcery to something that is not an epithet for all evil magic. In order, I'd prefer: (1) Wizardry (to reflect the native title of the typical user of this magic) (one problem is it could be read as a sexist name and we want to attract women to play RQ) (2) Lawful Magic (to reflect this magic's close association with the Law Rune) (3) Wisdom Magic (to reflect the nature of this magic, where accumulated skill is all-important) (4) Western Magic (to reflect the part of Genertela in which this magic is most apparent) Apprentices A corrected version of the last sentence would be: "A wizard's apprenticeship traditionally lasts about 7 years." 7 years isn't the minimum, it's the average. Adepts In traditional magical literature written in English the Adept is the highest grade of magician possible. An Adept should be superior to a Magus, Wizard, or whatever. I don't expect the terminology to change in RQ but it makes me wince every time I see it. Most neo-pagans who've read RQ have the same reaction. Duration Table It's stuffed. Zzzabur's feats would be impossible using this system. Same with the Range table. Since duration has always been the game-balance-buster (e.g. Halcyon var Enkorth) and on occasion I will admit that game-balance isn't completely evil let's use the same fix we used for Divine Extension, which could stuff game-balance as effectively as Duration (e.g. Platewalker). MP used to power a wizardry spell do not begin to regenerate until the spell has expired. In addition MP borrowed from a crystal or MP storage device or spirit or whatever cannot be recharged until the spell they powered has expired. This ban on magic point regeneration while the spell remains should be true, not only for sorcery, ahem wizardry, but for all magic systems, a meta-rule of magic if you will, and could go into the Magic Overview chapter along with the other meta-rules. Conceptually, such a rules discovery would imply that long duration spells are similar to a Tap. I think this similarity sounds "true," and it could possibly throw light on the workings of the world. In short, I think it's a fortunate rules discovery that is as good as Reusable Divine magic for initiates (bravo!). Bring back the RQ3 tables for Duration and Range. They aren't all bad, they just need a limit. Atheistic Sorcery Include the Mostali school of sorcery, just so GMs can use Mostali sorcerors, er wizards, when necessary for the scenario. Lunar Sorcery Please include descriptions of all the Lunar Schools of Sorcery, uh I mean Wizardry, not just the Dark and Dying moons. Darkness Sorcery Where are the sorcery schools for Trolls, especially the Stygian and Blue Moon schools? CREATURES I realize that this chapter is incomplete. It's still very good. Madness Spirits (193) Consider including a few more Emotion/Madness spirits such as Sloth, Greed, Cannibalism, Sexual Frenzy, Depression, Hallucinations, Hunger, Thirst, Satiety (the victim won't eat), Murderousness, Suicidal Tendencies, and the whole modern catalog of psychiatric disorders explained as possessing spirits. I'd also like to see spirits/demons that can make people into Lycanthropes, Vampires, Berserkers, dogs into Barghests, corpses into Ghouls, and so on. For instance, we know from RQ3 that Ghoul spirits possess dead bodies to create Ghouls, but we've never seen a description of such a spirit or what happens if one of those spirits possesses a living body. Fixed Hit Location Table I like it. 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA21035; Fri, 21 Jan 94 00:46:33 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA03303; Fri, 21 Jan 94 01:46:23 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 21 Jan 94 1:46:28 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 21 Jan 94 1:46:20 EST From: "Loren J. Miller" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RQ:AiG Date: 21 Jan 1994 01:43:33 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: Mine doesn't have any appendices either. Personally, I won't need the character conversion rules or the index because (1) I've already gone through it with the earlier drafts and (2) it's organized well enough that I can find things. -- Loren  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA23232; Fri, 21 Jan 94 01:11:11 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA03829; Fri, 21 Jan 94 02:10:59 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 21 Jan 94 2:11:04 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 21 Jan 94 2:10:56 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RQ:Glorantha Character Sheet Date: Thu, 20 Jan 1994 23:10:46 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: > Do you have any other sheets worked up yet for RQ:Glorantha? >Is this a two-sided sheet or one-sided? Is it generalized or does it >have a bias towards one style of magic (a problem I've faced with my >own sheets)? My character sheet is biased towards being easy to use. Therefore, it's one page, and has skills in alphabetic order. I chose not to leave space for subskills (but there's plenty of room at the end). Also, it has the human hit locations preprinted (making it hard to use for, say, windchildren). We don't have any sorcerers in my playtest group, so I can't say if it's biased towards one style of magic (I do have checkboxes for everything in the magic system, so you could argue that it's biased towards sorcery :-). I had sheets for earlier drafts of RQ4. My biggest decision now is whether to rearrange things slightly and put stats for a mount. I'd lose some skill space. > I'd love to see your sheet. Is it by any chance based on the >linear tracking sheet (the Mk. 4, I believe?). I have no idea what you're talking about, so probably not. > One thing that I still would like to know is whether or not >reality testing is a basis for RQ. Of course there's no need to go to >extremes, but it would be helpful to know if I should judge the hit >location table (for example) based on how often I get hit in the arms >or legs in LARP combat. Only if you use real weapons that can penetrate your real armor. Otherwise it's not a reality test. If we were realistic, the hit location table would be different depending on the target's style of fighting (e.g. fencing vs sword & shield) and whether or not the target is left handed. > About optional rules: I always liked the way that the optional >rules were given in the back of RQ2. When such rules are scattered >through the text the purpose of making them optional -- i.e. streamlining >the main body of rules -- is defeated. I've been trying to think of ways to present them. Boxed? Shaded? In microscopic type? I think they have to be clearly presented as being optional things you can add, rather than have any chance of confusing people into thinking they're part of the mainstream rules (I can bore you again with my stepdaughter trying to learn Elfquest if you don't agree :-) . I like the way Elric separates the spot rules for combat. 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA04952; Fri, 21 Jan 94 06:37:07 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA11828; Fri, 21 Jan 94 07:33:20 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 21 Jan 94 7:37:01 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 21 Jan 94 7:29:18 EST From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RuneQuest: Adventures in Glorantha Date: Fri, 21 Jan 94 03:11:39 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: Well, I'll admit to a certain comfort level with the old die-roll based damage bonuses, but I doubt a linear damage bonus would make or break it for me. The only problem I've always felt with those is that someone with a fixed bonus NEVER just grazes you. As you say, the hit location thing is no big deal at all. May I assume I've been cut out of the loop on this one? Since I'm rather a minority opinion on a number of issues regarding RQ, and am admittedly not particularly concerned about a number of the issues involving Gloranthan compatibility, it would be perfectly understandable. But at the very least it would be nice to know if I should watch for it in the mail or not. ------------------------------ 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 AA04900; Fri, 21 Jan 94 06:33:25 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA11750; Fri, 21 Jan 94 07:29:29 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 21 Jan 94 7:33:18 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 21 Jan 94 7:29:17 EST From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Loren's comments on RQ:AiG, II of II Date: Fri, 21 Jan 94 03:24:46 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: Re Loren's comments: I haven't seen the work, of course, but I'd like to back up a couple of suggestions Loren makes from what they imply. Spirit Magic really does describe it better than Battle Magic; too much of it is non-combat in orientation for the latter to be a good description. As to the sorcery duration and range tables, I had the same problem with the earlier drafts; the rules for these were almost useless because of cost. The range table never seemed that big a problem, and I rather like Loren's solution to the duration problem. Just off the top... ------------------------------ 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 AA12356; Thu, 20 Jan 94 17:45:39 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA20324; Thu, 20 Jan 94 18:45:26 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 20 Jan 94 18:45:34 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 20 Jan 94 18:45:11 EST From: graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RuneQuest: Adventures In Glorantha Date: Fri, 21 Jan 94 10:43:52 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: Malcolm Cohen writes > Obviously long-time players will fall into 3 broad camps: > (1) will not buy RQ4 > (2) will buy RQ4 and use the changes in it they like > (3) will buy RQ4 and switch to it more-or-less completely > > I don't buy this "memorised the old ones" argument. > > - There are more hit charts than just the humanoid ones. But the humanoid chart is used far more often than the any of the others, at least in our campaigns. It is the one most likely to be memorized > > - Anyone that fossilised will fall into category (1) anyway - they will not > accept ANY revision of the system (on exactly the same grounds). > Actually he fits into your category 2: we play mainly rq3 with the rq4 draft2.0 combat rules (I couldn't persuade him to change our campaign into just rq4). I didn't agree with his ruling on this - I liked the new table when it was proposed on this list - but he's far from fossilized. I was replying to a comment that many friends of a previous poster disliked the new table with a possible why they didn't. > - rejecting an improvement just because some old fogies won't use them is > not valid; if you are revising the system, it will change, period. Having > made the decision to revise the system implies that the "old fogey" argument > has already been rejected. I agree. I started rq with rq3, though I have a copy of the rq2 rules. > ...........................Malcolm Cohen, NAG Ltd., Oxford, U.K. > (malcolm@nag.co.uk) Graeme Lindsell a.k.a graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA17561; Fri, 21 Jan 94 10:06:11 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA18629; Fri, 21 Jan 94 11:05:19 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 21 Jan 94 11:06:00 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 21 Jan 94 11:05:03 EST From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Runes Date: Fri, 21 Jan 94 11:04:48 -0500 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: Ah, but let us not forget that the Runes are Godlearner trash.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA18384; Fri, 21 Jan 94 10:17:35 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA19233; Fri, 21 Jan 94 11:17:11 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 21 Jan 94 11:17:25 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 21 Jan 94 11:16:56 EST From: "Black, Stephen Thomas" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: RE: RuneQuest: Adventures in Glorantha Date: Fri, 21 Jan 1994 10:16:41 CST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: One of things I liked best about RQ2 when I started playing it was the non- linear damage bonus. D&D had all those Str 18 fighters with a +1 or +2 (or whatever I haven't played D&D in a long time) and it just didn't make sense to me that the fighter would hit each time with exactly the same extra force. Howev er I realize this view may be idiosyncratic and a matter of taste. I urge you to include nonlinear damage bonus as an optional rule. Stephen Black Psychology Department Millsaps College Blackst@okra.millsaps.edu Jackson, MS 39210 601-974-1381  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA19234; Fri, 21 Jan 94 10:31:16 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA20018; Fri, 21 Jan 94 11:30:55 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 21 Jan 94 11:31:03 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 21 Jan 94 11:30:38 EST From: burt@ptltd.com (Burton Choinski) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: RuneQuest: Adventures in Glorantha Date: Fri, 21 Jan 94 11:30:25 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: Stephen Black notes: %% One of things I liked best about RQ2 when I started playing it was the non- %% linear damage bonus. D&D had all those Str 18 fighters with a +1 or +2 (or %% whatever I haven't played D&D in a long time) and it just didn't make sense %% to me that the fighter would hit each time with exactly the same extra force. %% However I realize this view may be idiosyncratic and a matter of taste. %% I urge you to include nonlinear damage bonus as an optional rule. When I was playtesting it, I noted that 1d3 may be substituted for each +2, at the user's discretion. -- Burton  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA09870; Fri, 21 Jan 94 14:04:55 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA02133; Fri, 21 Jan 94 15:04:35 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 21 Jan 94 15:04:44 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 21 Jan 94 15:04:14 EST From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Discussing RQ4 on this list... Date: Fri, 21 Jan 1994 17:40:02 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: In , you write: Dave Cake >Brent >> The limited distribution of the latest draft and public nature of this >> list is a bit odd, and has been pointed out before. My question (to those >> in the know) is: if mailing costs are why the new draft is limited in >> ditribution, then can prospective additional recipients pay for said >> costs themselves? I just want a copy of the new draft, not a free ride, >> so if I pay for the cost of getting it to me, where is the problem? > I second this, and also would like to make the point that I am willing to help > with postage costs even if I was to be sent one anyway, in support of the > good work done by Oliver, Carl, etc. Just email me and I'll send some IRCs. > I would certainly hate to miss out on a copy because I live somewhere > (perth, Australia) that is expensive to mail too. I'll queue up, too, although this way the distribution will rise into unknown heights. And via air mail this might come more expensive than the finished product, but via surface mail it would probably arrive around the time it comes out of print. BTW, David Dunham, is there a chance for you to scan in your character sheet? And Re: mag index included: is there any non-English language magazine (like Free INT, plug plug) mentioned? -- Joerg Baumgartner rq4@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA20305; Fri, 21 Jan 94 10:43:05 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA20798; Fri, 21 Jan 94 11:42:45 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 21 Jan 94 11:42:52 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 21 Jan 94 11:42:11 EST From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Loren's comments: Date: Fri, 21 Jan 94 11:41:59 -0500 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: Okay, I can see a justification for a shield not protecting with full armor points when used passively: A sheild used actively uses the EDGE to take a blow, one used passively uses the "flat". Any board struck edgewise is usually harder to go through than one struck on the flat.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA20421; Fri, 21 Jan 94 10:44:40 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA20891; Fri, 21 Jan 94 11:44:24 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 21 Jan 94 11:44:31 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 21 Jan 94 11:44:22 EST From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: the Names of Magic Date: Fri, 21 Jan 94 11:44:16 -0500 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: Actually, once I get an RQ campaign started here at Cornell, I'm going to try out a new idea for naming magic. I am going to give completely neutral "player names" for the three types of magic. Probably something like "Type I", "Type II", "Type III". Now, before you get yer panties in an uproar, I will then require that, in the context of play, PCs and NPCs NOT use these terms. Instead, each RELIGION will have generalized terms and SOME cults will have more specific terms. (I intentionally differentiate between the "religions" and "cults" of Glorantha. The cults of Orlanth, Issaries, Humakt, etc. belong to the RELIGION of the Pavic Orlanthi in my campaign.) Example: Assume Type I is the old "spirit magic" and Type II is the old "divine magic". My Orlanthi religion would teach that Orlanth, the great chieftan is, of course, "giver of gifts" (as are all great chieftans). Type I magic is simply referred to as "Orlanth's Gifts". Type II Magic is an entirely different matter. This sort is known as "Orlanth's Boon Gifts", because they must be specially requested via a more elaborate and costly ceremony and they imply that the recipient is specially bound to service to Orlanth. Most of the Orlanthi religions simply substitue the appropriate deity's name for their gifts. Some pertinent differences: Humakti refer to their Type II magic as "Divine Swords". Chalana Arroyans call their Type I magic "minor measures" and their Type II magic "heroic measures". Et cetera.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA20781; Fri, 21 Jan 94 10:46:34 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA21062; Fri, 21 Jan 94 11:46:20 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 21 Jan 94 11:46:26 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 21 Jan 94 11:45:52 EST From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Combat Changes Date: Fri, 21 Jan 94 11:45:40 -0500 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: I don't much like the single to hit chart--but I could live with it. I liked the fact that melee and missile attacks had very different distributions. As for the "linear damage bonus"--it went over well with my group. They were a good deal less confused by die+bonus than they were with die+die+bonus (the "bonus" in this case being from the basic weapon damage).  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA09922; Fri, 21 Jan 94 14:05:17 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA02148; Fri, 21 Jan 94 15:04:47 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 21 Jan 94 15:04:54 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 21 Jan 94 15:04:25 EST From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Crafts and Lores Date: Fri, 21 Jan 1994 18:32:08 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: David Dunham wrote: > Speaking of controversy, here are some points which could possibly be > discussed even by people who haven't seen the rules: > I understand that you want to make Craft/Farming a more practical skill > than Lore/Plant. You're trying to separate Doing from Knowing. But you > can't Do if you don't Know. And I think Craft/Farming (and Craft/Herding) > is a bad idea for several reasons: > a) You can have farmers (or herders) who know nothing about what they're > doing (they have no Plant Lore or Animal Lore). And correctly so. There are for instance nuclear plant workers (and decisions taking politicians) who don't hace any idea about what really happens. In germany we have a saying which translates "The most stupid farmer will harvest the biggest potatoes". If he follows the orders of the Grain Goddess/ Plow God clerus unquestioningly, this might be accurate. > b) You have two largely overlapping skills. Which do you use when you want > to decide what to plant? Craft/Farming or Plant Lore (read its > description)? Craft Farming. Plant Lore is used to identify and apply plants (and parts of them), the problem you present might as well be answered by Soil Lore or (on Glorantha best) Divination. > c) You're creating skill dilution -- too many skills to spread points between. The real problem, unless a related skill system similar to the languages is included. I'd advocate to include one for none-combat skills as well. > d) You're incompatible with RQ3. No RQ3 farmer can farm. (Yes, your > conversion rules will probably cover this, but they wouldn't be necessary). Big deal. > e) Not all money-making skills are Crafts (e.g. Bargain and Evaluate). > I think you should choose one or the other. Given that farming _is_ a > practical skill, drop Plant Lore (and Animal Lore). You forget Hunter-Gatherer types (e.g. Agimori or Hsunchen). All they need is the knowledge where and when to collect, and for hunting the skill how to. Since that overlaps with adventuring skills, no Craft: Hunting, please. > This of course has problems because then can't really have Horse Lore...but > Horse Lore is really a rather practical matter, I imagine (like knowing how > to help mares give birth), so it'd probably be a Doing skill, like > Craft/Horse Herding. Horse Lore? What for? Animal lore for a familiar animal will do the trick. If we need to define familiarity, use Ride, Drive, Craft: Redsmith (or what are Gloranthan hoof-"irons" made of?) or First Aid (for veterinaries) skills. See above for related skills. If not otherwise, make it optional. One might use the above as example. Take the highest of the skills in question, in case of doubt use your judgement, and use it either as modifier (which woud yield only positive numbers), or, like for RQ3 language similarity, as factor for the skill. > I think we need a new term, so you can move practical lores like Animal > Lore and Plant Lore into Reasoning skills that can get a check, but leave > Glorantha Lore or World Lore (nobody uses the skill to change the weather) > as Knowledge skills which can't be improved from experience. Make crafts manipulation skills. INT goes in, DEX and STR rarely are detrimental. Only cognitive skills like Navigation, First Aid or Map Making (I don't whether any of these still exist) would be reasoning skills, i.e. Knowledge skills with check box. Lores might profit from experience, too. But to use skill checks as bonus for research time would be at best an optional rule... -- Joerg Baumgartner rq4@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA01028; Fri, 21 Jan 94 12:26:19 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA26671; Fri, 21 Jan 94 13:25:54 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 21 Jan 94 13:26:11 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 21 Jan 94 13:25:39 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Loren's comments: Date: Fri, 21 Jan 1994 10:25:23 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: >Okay, I can see a justification for a shield not protecting with full >armor points when used passively: A sheild used actively uses the EDGE >to take a blow, one used passively uses the "flat". Any board struck >edgewise is usually harder to go through than one struck on the flat. But passive parrying is usually against arrows, which you don't parry with the edge... >Chalana Arroyans call their Type I magic "minor >measures" and their Type II magic "heroic measures". Et cetera. This sounds like excellent Gloranthan flavor. However, "Type I" is very awkward to use for players and especially GMs. 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA09935; Fri, 21 Jan 94 14:05:46 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA02209; Fri, 21 Jan 94 15:05:31 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 21 Jan 94 15:05:36 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 21 Jan 94 15:04:57 EST From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Loren's comments on RQ:AiG Date: Fri, 21 Jan 1994 19:53:38 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: Loren Miller writes: > Comments on _RuneQuest: Adventures in Glorantha_ manuscript after > a first reading. Since Loren's list is already long, I'll try and cut my remarks short. > INTRODUCTION > That said, it wouldn't hurt to start RQ4 with an > *brief* overview of Glorantha (no more than 2 pages) like that in > the beginning of RQ2. > CREATING AN ADVENTURER > Abbreviations > to my mind there are > too many abbreviations here. HP, MP and SR make for a sufficient > quantity of abbreviations. They're probably too many. We don't > need AP, DB, HL, HT and MV too (Armor, Damage Bonus, Hit Points > per Location, Hit Location Table, and Move). Data sheets (especially for NPCs) are notoriously short of space and need quite a bunch of clear abbr. I know from typesetting magazine scenarios... > Battle Magic vs Spirit Magic I agree: nay to Battle Magic, and Animistic Magic doesn't bite. But how about Common Magic for this? (I know, nether in the West nor in the East, but since the descriptions seem to focus on central Genertela, this might fit.) > GAME MECHANICS > Skill versus Skill > If we can possibly remove the additional die roll in this > section let's do it. [...] whoever > rolled lower wins. This keeps the integrity of the RQ meta-rule > that "low is good" better than adopting the pendragon-style > "highest success wins" rule [...] Full agreement. > TIME AND LEARNING > Intelligence Training > This isn't mentioned in the chapter, and Chapter 2 says that > such training is impossible. I don't believe it though. Seconded. RQ offers enough possibilities to play culturally naive that we don't need to play morons. > COMBAT > Optional Effects of Special Hits [Entangling, Tripping] Sounds like Elric-style Spot rules. Seconded. > Shield Coverage > IMO, if you hold a shield in front of a location or three > you should benefit from all its Armor, not just half. What, is it > thinner if you use it that way? Is it more realistic? More fun? Melee: might be sensible. BTW, how does one damage the shield arm of someone holding a larger shield without penetrating the shield? SCA-fighters to the front! > Damage to Locations > Given the lowered weapon damages can we reduce the damage > required to cut off a limb? So that each Donald Duck can cripple a Death Lord? No way, please. The non-linear damage bonus helped to randomize high/low damage, though, and I'll sincerely miss it. (Not in games I master, but...) > percentage relationships between similar weapons. Could one kind soul sketch these out? They seem to be a major innovation. > One thing seems odd, though. Are sling > stones and bullets really impaling weapons as implied by the note > at the bottom of that table? IMO lots less likely than arrows or spears, but for these (again IMO) 1 5th of all hits is too scarce, at least for arrows. [Cultural equipment table] Good idea. > Armor Table > Is it necessary to mention that the various metal armors are > made of Bronze? [...] I don't see a problem for non-Glorantha campaigns. In mine I replace all references to bronze as weapon etc material by iron where sensible, and all Gloranthan iron by steel. Works fine. > Knockback (90) > Why not simplify the rule to this? [deleted] This was simplyfied? I doubt a newcomer will understand this easily, and with one read. > THE WORLD OF MAGIC > I'm not sure about the title of this chapter either. How about "The Rules of Magic"? > Apparent Effects of Magic (109-111) > Excellent! This is the single greatest innovation in the > magic rules, and it is even usable outside of Glorantha. What is it? > Magic Items and Enchantments and so on > These belong in their own chapter, which should follow all > the magic systems. But clear out e.g. whether a sorcery matrix can slowly be increassed WRT intensity, duration etc. > By the way, is there any description of finely > made weapons somewhere? Yes, I've missed that. Rules for (unenchanted) copper weapons might help for inferior quality, too. > Battle Magic (117) > This belongs in its own chapter, and if we're taking votes I > think it should be called Spirit Magic. [A spirit magic chapter > exists, but it describes shamans and is thus misnamed.] See above. The shaman chapter might be named "Dealing with Spirits". > DIVINE MAGIC > Duties of Initiates, Priests, Acolytes, Rune Lords, etc... > I would like to see a distinction between those duties that > are required by the god and those that are required by the flock > and the cult hierarchy. Those duties assigned by the god must be > followed on pain of falling into inactivity or sacrilege. Or impests and similar. I'd really like to know how far the impious may go before becoming infidel. How bad is missing an official worship service on a holy day? May one repent in more private sessions off-time? > Rune Lords > The name Rune Lord reflects a RQ2-style emphasis of runes > over deities. How about calling them Masters instead? Doesn't click with me. Lords is good enough, after all in the single cult they are known as Khans, Wind or Death Lords or more poetically in pars-pro-toto manner as Swords, Jaws etc. One might drop the Rune, but it sounds good. > Extension and extended spells cannot be regained until they > expire. Good call. That's how I read already the RQ3 rules. See below. > SPIRIT MAGIC > Shamanic Abilities > I appreciate the way that this differentiates between > different types of shamans. But the tables and the "Level" system > (there's that damn L-word) to gain those abilities smack of game- > balance (and they "feel" like D&D). Please, let's keep RQ free of > new rules systems. BIG YES! Keep out the L-word. Call it "stages of initiation" or something, if these occur after undergoing a major ritual, or else just tie them to skill percentages. Perhaps allow some skill percentages as prerequisitives (similar to the RQ3 rules for acceptance). > Shamanic Extended Duration > So far both Divine magicians and Sorcerors, er Wizards, can > extend the duration of their spells, but Shamans can't. This > isn't fair. Seconded. But I'd really, really like to see the more civilized specialist of Common Magic (my prefered word for Spirit Magic) without a Fetch. If not for Glorantha, then outside of it. > I suggest that > there be an additional Shamanic ability that ties a trapped > spirit to a spell for a long period of time, and that a spirit > thus used should still occupy its space in the fetch's spirit > traps until the shaman frees it from its task. How about a revival of the old concept of storing MP in the Spirit Plane (or did I misunderstand this?), and using these up? > SORCERY > Consider changing the name of this chapter and the name of the > magic system with it. YES! > (1) Wizardry (to reflect the native title of the typical user of > this magic) (one problem is it could be read as a sexist > name and we want to attract women to play RQ) My favorite, too, until someone betters this bid. > (4) Western Magic (to reflect the part of Genertela in which > this magic is most apparent) Maybe, if applied to just that. Dwarvish magic is, was, and will be sorcery, i.e. bad. Except for dwarves, who have no moral values anyway. Eastern sorcery might as well get an eastern name, like I Ching. And it ought to have notable deviations from Western Magic without having to recreate the wheel. > Adepts > In traditional magical literature written in English the > Adept is the highest grade of magician possible. An Adept should > be superior to a Magus, Wizard, or whatever. I don't expect the > terminology to change in RQ but it makes me wince every time I > see it. Most neo-pagans who've read RQ have the same reaction. Yes. Student, Apprentice, Wizard, Adept. I like to think the only reason why this wasn't done so before is that noone likes to say long words like "Sorcerer". We need a short and fitting term for someone able to use Wizardry, though (and for the other magicsystems as well). > Duration Table > It's stuffed. Zzzabur's feats would be impossible using this > system. Same with the Range table. Since duration has always been > the game-balance-buster (e.g. Halcyon var Enkorth) and on occasion > I will admit that game-balance isn't completely evil let's use > the same fix we used for Divine Extension, which could stuff > game-balance as effectively as Duration (e.g. Platewalker). MP > used to power a wizardry spell do not begin to regenerate until > the spell has expired. In addition MP borrowed from a crystal or > MP storage device or spirit or whatever cannot be recharged until > the spell they powered has expired. This ban on magic point > regeneration while the spell remains should be true, not only for > sorcery, ahem wizardry, but for all magic systems, a meta-rule of > magic if you will, and could go into the Magic Overview chapter > along with the other meta-rules. Almost full agreement. Only the table ought to go like: (Regular: 10 min) 1/2 hour 1 hour 3 hours (i.e. until dusk/noon/dawn/midnight until dusk/dawn 1 full day (next dawn/dusk) 3 full days 1 week 2 weeks 4 weeks 1 season (including Sacred Season) (until last day of season) 3 seasons 1 year (until last day of season) 2 years 4 years etc. by the power of two > Conceptually, such a rules discovery would imply that long > duration spells are similar to a Tap. I think this similarity > sounds "true," and it could possibly throw light on the workings > of the world. In short, I think it's a fortunate rules discovery > that is as good as Reusable Divine magic for initiates (bravo!). I like it, too. Now where are the rules for large rituals where each participant offers use of one or more of his magic point potential? > Atheistic Sorcery > Include the Mostali school of sorcery, just so GMs can use > Mostali sorcerors, er wizards, when necessary for the scenario. And keep the name sorcery. > Lunar Sorcery Here too. > Darkness Sorcery > Where are the sorcery schools for Trolls, especially the > Stygian and Blue Moon schools? Blue Moon Wizardry? I agree with Arkat as source, but where and when did Annilla steal or trade that secret? Darkness magics ought to come from Subere&Dehore, or be stolen. > Fixed Hit Location Table Could someone post it? Did the rules for aimed blows change? BTW, I know the RQ3 tables for humanoids and four-legged critters mostly by heart, only confusing left and right. Both ought to be presented in the character generation chapter, since they are really most useful to anyone, and be in one place for easy reference. -- Joerg Baumgartner rq4@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA14951; Fri, 21 Jan 94 14:55:14 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA04814; Fri, 21 Jan 94 15:54:59 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 21 Jan 94 15:55:09 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 21 Jan 94 15:54:57 EST From: Scott Ferrier To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: RQ4 Character Sheets Ideas Date: Fri, 21 Jan 1994 15:50:14 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: David Dunham said: >My character sheet is biased towards being easy to use. Therefore, >it's one page, and has skills in alphabetic order. I chose not to >leave space for subskills (but there's plenty of room at the end). >Also, it has the human hit locations preprinted (making it hard to >use for, say, windchildren). I wonder if it might be a sorta nightmare when your power goes up and down and you have to handle category modifiers. Another idea I would like to throw on the table is to change the weapons table to: Weapon__________________ Damage_____________ SR_____ A%_____o C_____ S_____ F_____ AP_____ P%_____o C_____ S_____ F_____ with the additional line for missle weapons of: Eff. Range_____ Max. Range_____ Missles_____ This way people can tell at a glance and without calculating if they have criticaled, specialed or (gods forbid) fumbled. I have also found a need for the number of missles left to be important. .....fsnamyack@trystero.com......(Scott Ferrier).......... ..Captain of Chaos Crushers in the Trollball Valind league. ..2nd place in RuneQuest Con '94..special Stegasaurus Club. ...........................................................  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA15304; Fri, 21 Jan 94 14:59:05 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA05038; Fri, 21 Jan 94 15:58:52 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 21 Jan 94 15:58:58 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 21 Jan 94 15:58:46 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Discussing RQ4 on this list... Date: Fri, 21 Jan 1994 12:58:30 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: >BTW, David Dunham, is there a chance for you to scan in your character sheet? No (my hand scanner is too narrow), and if I could, it would probably be too large for me to send (RadioMail isn't a full Internet link like most of you have). >And Re: mag index included: is there any non-English language magazine >(like Free INT, plug plug) mentioned? No -- and Codex isn't listed either. But the RQ Daily is.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA26288; Fri, 21 Jan 94 17:18:22 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA12295; Fri, 21 Jan 94 18:18:03 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 21 Jan 94 18:18:15 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 21 Jan 94 18:17:54 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RQ4 Character Sheets Ideas Date: Fri, 21 Jan 1994 15:17:35 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: >David Dunham said: >>My character sheet is biased towards being easy to use. Therefore, >>it's one page, and has skills in alphabetic order. > >I wonder if it might be a sorta nightmare when your power goes up >and down and you have to handle category modifiers. That was _ALWAYS_ a nightmare. Luckily, in RQ4, POW doesn't factor into any modifiers >Another idea I would like to throw on the table is to change the >weapons table to: > Weapon__________________ Damage_____________ > SR_____ A%_____o C_____ S_____ F_____ > AP_____ P%_____o C_____ S_____ F_____ >with the additional line for missle weapons of: > Eff. Range_____ Max. Range_____ Missles_____ >This way people can tell at a glance and without calculating if they >have criticaled, specialed or (gods forbid) fumbled. I have also >found a need for the number of missles left to be important. At the moment, each weapon is a separate row, with the headings Weapon ENC SR Attack Crit Spec Fumb Damage Parry HP and there's no distinction between types of weapons. I'm debating whether or not to have any pre-printed weapons (like Fist or Dagger). I adopted this approach because some people in my campaign like to list LOTS of weapons, and I think it fits in several more than your style would. On the other hand, it would be very nice to have weapon range, so I may try that and see how many weapon slots I lose. (My guess is I'd go from 12 to 8 slots.) 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA25110; Fri, 21 Jan 94 21:54:19 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA20317; Fri, 21 Jan 94 22:51:11 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 21 Jan 94 22:54:11 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 21 Jan 94 22:50:57 EST From: Carl Fink To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Discussing RQ4 on this list... Date: Fri, 21 Jan 1994 22:50:41 -0500 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: David Cake writes: >I second this, and also would like to make the point that I am willing to hel >with postage costs even if I was to be sent one anyway, in support of the >good work done by Oliver, Carl, etc. Just email me and I'll send some IRCs. > I would certainly hate to miss out on a copy because I live somewhere >(perth, Australia) that is expensive to mail too. > It isn't just the mailing costs - duplication of a 200+ page manuscript runs about $24.00 commercially.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA25120; Fri, 21 Jan 94 21:54:26 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA20377; Fri, 21 Jan 94 22:54:14 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 21 Jan 94 22:54:19 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 21 Jan 94 22:51:08 EST From: Carl Fink To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Loren's comments on RQ:AiG, II of II Date: Fri, 21 Jan 1994 22:50:47 -0500 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: Loren Miller comments on RQ4: Loren, a note -- I don't see a CC: to Oliver here. He handles playtester comments, and also he doesn't have time to read this list in detail. If you're going to make detailed comments like this, please send a copy to Oliver as jovanovic@columbia.edu. If you think the list would be interested, please *do* post them here, too. I'll forward your two postings to Oliver. M>Battle Magic (117) > This belongs in its own chapter, and if we're taking votes I >think it should be called Spirit Magic. [A spirit magic chapter >exists, but it describes shamans and is thus misnamed.] What we were trying to do here was point out that a common mechanic (Battle Magic) applied to spells learned in two different ways -- from shamans (Spirit Magic) and from priests (Cult Magic). A worshipper likely doesn't think of his Humakti Bladesharp as coming from a "spirit" -- he thinks of it as coming from Humakt. M>Duties of Initiates, Priests, Acolytes, Rune Lords, etc... > I would like to see a distinction between those duties that >are required by the god and those that are required by the flock >and the cult hierarchy. Those duties assigned by the god must be >followed on pain of falling into inactivity or sacrilege. Those >duties assigned by the hierarchy must be followed on pain of >being called to account by cult superiors. Attendance at High >Holy Days would be an example of the first sort of duty, as would >be Not-Initiating-into-Enemy-Cults. Tithes would be an example of >the second sort of duty. Furthermore with tithes, especially with >rune-levels, either you tithe a percentage of your time to a cult >or a percentage of your income, but not both. Otherwise it gets >to where a rune level is tithing 99% of all his time/money. God Learner! Loren's a God Learner!...ahem. That isn't how we see things -- duties are duties. M>Rune Lords > The name Rune Lord reflects a RQ2-style emphasis of runes >over deities. How about calling them Masters instead? The rune- >fans will like it because it echoes the Mastery rune which >"runelords" embody, and I like it because it implies the major >distinction between Priests and Masters, that the Priest lives >mythically by repeating the god's actions in ritual and the >Master lives mythically by perfecting those abilities taught by >the god. "Rune Lord" is too established to simply remove, and we're trying to reemphasize Runes anyway. M>Shamanic Extended Duration > So far both Divine magicians and Sorcerors, er Wizards, can >extend the duration of their spells, but Shamans can't. This >isn't fair. Sheng Seleris should be able to cast a long-duration >spell without using his unique Hero abilities. I suggest that >there be an additional Shamanic ability that ties a trapped >spirit to a spell for a long period of time, and that a spirit >thus used should still occupy its space in the fetch's spirit >traps until the shaman frees it from its task. Um, Loren -- there are *lots* of shamanic abilities we don't list in the manuscript. We're deliberately leaving something for GMs to invent, and for future supplements. M>Lunar Sorcery > Please include descriptions of all the Lunar Schools of >Sorcery, uh I mean Wizardry, not just the Dark and Dying moons. We can't. M>Darkness Sorcery > Where are the sorcery schools for Trolls, especially the >Stygian and Blue Moon schools? We have space limitations. Thanks for taking the time and thought to compose these comments, Loren. Belief in the precognitive powers of an Asian pastry is really no wackier than belief in ESP, subluxation, or astrology, but you just don't hear anyone preaching Scientific Cookie-ism. --Penn and Teller Carl Fink carlf@panix.com CARL.FINK (GEnie)  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA26093; Sat, 22 Jan 94 13:25:24 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA11760; Sat, 22 Jan 94 14:23:58 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 22 Jan 94 14:25:17 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 22 Jan 94 14:23:44 EST From: gharris@Jade.Tufts.EDU To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RuneQuest: Adventures In Glorantha Date: Sat, 22 Jan 94 14:18:17 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: Well, I hate the unified hit location, and not because it's new. It seems to be to be a change for change's sake. It doesn't make the game better in any way, and it removes an important (I feel) and realistic feature that no other game incorporates. If you don't want to put two different hit location tables for each and every creature in Gloranthat, fine, then if it's preferred, put just one. However, there are strong differences in what areas of the body are more likely to be hit by melee and missile weapons (at least according to my friends who do live-action RP involving combat), and removing that distinction seems to me to be dumbing down the game. -- George W. Harris gharris@jade.tufts.edu Dept. of Mathematics Tufts University Days, I remember cities. Nights, I dream about a perfect place. Days, I dive by the wreck. Nights, I swim in the blue lagoon.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA27956; Sat, 22 Jan 94 14:06:48 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA12951; Sat, 22 Jan 94 15:06:32 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 22 Jan 94 15:06:37 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 22 Jan 94 15:06:22 EST From: gharris@Jade.Tufts.EDU To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RQ:Glorantha Character Sheet Date: Sat, 22 Jan 94 15:00:45 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: I would like to add my voice as emphatically opposing having skills arranged in alphabetical order on the character sheet. Let me give my reasons. Primarily, I think it is useful to have all the skills affected by a modifier grouped under that modifier. This is helpful if a) you don't write the skills down with the modifier (that is, you roll for success versus the number written down plus the category modifier, and you roll for increase by experience against just the number written down), because the modifier is *right* there near the skill. This is also helpful if b) you do add in the modifier to the skill as written (that is, you roll for success versus the number written down, and you add the modifier to your roll for increasing the skill by experience), because when you are rolling for experience the modifier is *right* there to be added to your roll. Also, if a stat changes that affects the modifier, then all the skills that are affected by that change are grouped together and can be changed all at once without having to hunt for them all over the character sheet (that is, if you add the modifier into the skill as written on the character sheet). I haven't had time to look at all the rules yet, but if having a characterisitic change doesn't change the modifier anymore, well, I'll be very disappointed. This will mark an arbitrary shift in a character's life from when she was an NPC to when she is a PC, and suddenly characteristic changes no longer affect skills. Very bad. Also, I think that it's ludicrous that POW is not involved in the Magic Skills modifier. Under these rules, a wizard's POW has *no* effect on how well he can cast spells. I realize that POW changes more frequently than other characteristics, but I don't think the ease gained by removing POW from skill modifiers outweighs the idiocy of having it unrelated to the magic skills modifier. IMHO.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA28251; Sat, 22 Jan 94 14:22:09 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA13495; Sat, 22 Jan 94 15:21:58 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 22 Jan 94 15:22:04 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 22 Jan 94 15:21:52 EST From: gharris@Jade.Tufts.EDU To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RQ4 Character Sheets Ideas Date: Sat, 22 Jan 94 15:16:22 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: WRT adding Weapon Range to teh weapon description line, it would be reasonable to have it replace the Parry section, since very few characters ever use their Bow/Sling/Crossbow Parry (although I had one character who actually used his Bow Parry to good effect once). -- George W. Harris gharris@jade.tufts.edu Dept. of Mathematics Tufts University Days, I remember cities. Nights, I dream about a perfect place. Days, I dive by the wreck. Nights, I swim in the blue lagoon.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA00295; Sat, 22 Jan 94 15:05:07 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA14812; Sat, 22 Jan 94 16:04:52 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 22 Jan 94 16:05:01 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 22 Jan 94 16:04:45 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RQ:Glorantha Character Sheet Date: Sat, 22 Jan 1994 13:04:32 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: > I would like to add my voice as emphatically opposing having skills >arranged in alphabetical order on the character sheet. Let me give my >reasons. Primarily, I think it is useful to have all the skills affected >by a modifier grouped under that modifier. This is helpful if a) you don't >write the skills down with the modifier (that is, you roll for success versus >the number written down plus the category modifier, and you roll for increase >by experience against just the number written down), because the modifier is >*right* there near the skill. This is also helpful if b) you do add in the >modifier to the skill as written (that is, you roll for success versus the >number written down, and you add the modifier to your roll for increasing the >skill by experience), because when you are rolling for experience the >modifier is *right* there to be added to your roll. Also, if a stat changes >that affects the modifier, then all the skills that are affected by that >change are grouped together and can be changed all at once without having >to hunt for them all over the character sheet (that is, if you add the >modifier into the skill as written on the character sheet). The alphabetic character sheet is somewhat controversial. Call of Cthulhu and Elric certainly manage fine with it. Star Wars obviously could not. Given that characteristics (and hence category modifiers) change rarely, and that most people would rather have a single number to deal with during play (and not have to add every time they make a roll), I think the alpha sheet works better in play. Obviously not everyone does their bookkeeping the same way. If you do change characteristics or roll for experience more often than you roll for skills, then the sheet arranged by category works better. It's far from clear that RQ:AiG will use an alpha sheet, so I appreciate hearing your feedback. (I'd also like to know what you think once you've actually seen the sheet.) >I haven't had >time to look at all the rules yet, but if having a characterisitic change >doesn't change the modifier anymore, well, I'll be very disappointed. This >will mark an arbitrary shift in a character's life from when she was an NPC >to when she is a PC, and suddenly characteristic changes no longer affect >skills. Very bad. You're flailing at a straw man. No such rule exists. 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA00480; Sat, 22 Jan 94 15:14:08 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA15022; Sat, 22 Jan 94 16:13:58 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 22 Jan 94 16:14:02 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 22 Jan 94 16:13:40 EST From: gharris@Jade.Tufts.EDU To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RQ:Glorantha Character Sheet Date: Sat, 22 Jan 94 16:08:12 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: Well, the idea of having post-character-creation-stat-changes not affect skill modifiers was seriously suggested in previous discussion on this list, so its inclusion was not a low-probability event. And having skills arranged by category is advantageous no matter how often you roll for experience relative to rolling for skills, unless you *never* roll for experience, but if we wanted that, we'd play Classic Traveller. And the relative rarity of stat changes is very campaign-dependent. I've been in campaigns in which they were very common (because of diseases, training and exotic magics) and campaigns in which they were (aside from POW) almost unheard of. -- George W. Harris gharris@jade.tufts.edu Dept. of Mathematics Tufts University Days, I remember cities. Nights, I dream about a perfect place. Days, I dive by the wreck. Nights, I swim in the blue lagoon.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA27780; Sat, 22 Jan 94 21:51:58 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA24989; Sat, 22 Jan 94 22:51:31 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 22 Jan 94 22:51:51 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 22 Jan 94 22:51:19 EST From: David Cake To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RQ:Glorantha Character Sheet Date: Sun, 23 Jan 94 11:50:32 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: Well, I will also raise my voice in opposition to the alphabetical order of skills on character sheets. My reason is because I find that a large proportion of character skills are of the sort that are not possessed in the general population, and so at least half (if using RQ4, maybe a third for RQ3) of a characters skills would not be on the standard templete, especially considering languages, and the RQ4 growth in different Crafts and Lores. SO the big problem with alphabetical order is that a large proportion of skills end up being written in at the end of the list out of order anyway, so it doesn't really work. But it doesn't really matter, we could even have two variant character sheets if a reasonable proportion like the alphabetical idea. Cheers Dave Cake  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA02171; Sat, 22 Jan 94 23:35:39 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA26743; Sun, 23 Jan 94 00:35:15 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 23 Jan 94 0:35:26 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 23 Jan 94 0:35:10 EST From: David Cake To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Loren's comments on RQ:AiG, II of II Date: Sun, 23 Jan 94 13:34:25 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: > By the way, the price tables with the availability column are new > and very useful and deserve a mention. > I have always found that RQ seemed to lacking in price table that are both fairly complete, and reliable. Actually I suspect that it is no worse that other fantasy RPGs but a) RQ3 particularly made the effort to reflect real historic price structures, and so as GM I felt less comfortable about simpley naming arbitrary prices. b) My current RQ players seem to have more unusual buying needs, probably due to roleplaying. A good long price list would be nice thing to see in the finished product, including lots of things that are there for general comparitive purposes rather than necessarily for PCs to buy (like grain and herd animals), and various gloranthan useful info as well (like raw rune metal). Of course, I haven't seen RQ4 so the current one might be great. > > Apparent Effects of Magic (109-111) > Excellent! This is the single greatest innovation in the > magic rules, and it is even usable outside of Glorantha. > If this is basically the same as RQ4 draft 2.0 then I thought that it was a bit fireworksy. But having this section included is very definately a must, these questions really need to be clearly stated somewhere (and neither RQ2 or RQ3 did so.) > Magic Items and Enchantments and so on > These belong in their own chapter, which should follow all > the magic systems. Yep. Definate agreement. > > Battle Magic (117) > This belongs in its own chapter, and if we're taking votes I > think it should be called Spirit Magic. [A spirit magic chapter > exists, but it describes shamans and is thus misnamed.] > I hate the term Battle Magic a lot. The ONLY thing that it has got going for it is to appeal to the RQ2 conservatives. Common Magic is bearable, but I think that it remains Spirit Magic to me. Battle magic definately hails back to the dark old days (pre-RuneQuest!) of D&D (obviously the term was invented before the publication of RQ1 :-), and thus in the dark ages) and reflects a very combat oriented idea of life. I guess that Humakti call their spells Battle Magic, but I can't see it being a term used by the Ernalda cultists. Why not retitle the 'Spirit Magic' chapter 'The Spirit World', and put shamans and Spirit Lore descriptions and spirit plane encounters, etc. in it? > > Duties of Initiates, Priests, Acolytes, Rune Lords, etc... > I would like to see a distinction between those duties that > are required by the god and those that are required by the flock > and the cult hierarchy. Those duties assigned by the god must be > followed on pain of falling into inactivity or sacrilege. Those > duties assigned by the hierarchy must be followed on pain of > being called to account by cult superiors. Attendance at High > Holy Days would be an example of the first sort of duty, as would > be Not-Initiating-into-Enemy-Cults. Tithes would be an example of > the second sort of duty. Furthermore with tithes, especially with > rune-levels, either you tithe a percentage of your time to a cult > or a percentage of your income, but not both. Otherwise it gets > to where a rune level is tithing 99% of all his time/money. > I tend to think that there is not such a clear distinction. To some extent the cult superiours have jurisdiction over the Spirits of Reprisal in many cults, for example. > Rune Lords > The name Rune Lord reflects a RQ2-style emphasis of runes > over deities. How about calling them Masters instead? The rune- > fans will like it because it echoes the Mastery rune which > "runelords" embody, and I like it because it implies the major > distinction between Priests and Masters, that the Priest lives > mythically by repeating the god's actions in ritual and the > Master lives mythically by perfecting those abilities taught by > the god. > In practice, not a very important point, as most Rune Lords have a special title anyway. > Religions (134-143) > You list the pantheons common to Maniria and Peloria in > thumbnail format. Excellent! If you're taking votes, I vote that > you add Yara Aranis (the Reaching Moon) to the thumbnails of the > Lunar pantheon. She's an important enemy god for all those who > oppose Lunar expansion, and especially for anybody who rides a > horse (e.g. Pentans and Grazelanders). Yes, I just played a > Grazelands scenario where seven of us ran up against *one* of > those Reaching Moon witches, and she was bad news! Also, > shouldn't Horned Man and/or Daka Fal be part of the Praxian > pantheon? I want my ancestor worship! [Okay, I found Daka Fal in > the shamanism chapter, but at least you should point it out here. > Plus the summon ancestor spells are missing.] > > Extension spell (146) > Extension and extended spells cannot be regained until they > expire. Good call. > And this is the sort of simple fix I would like for sorcery instead of any of this sacrificing permanent POW rubbish. Yes, good call. > SPIRIT MAGIC > Spirit Magic should have its own chapter, but this chapter is all > about Shamans, not about Spirit Magic. Call the chapter SHAMANS > As I said, how about a "Spirit World" chapter describing how interactions with spirits (Spirit Lore), spirit abilities and the spirit plane, and spirit specialists (shamans). Maybe even some details on summoning should go here? I liked the way RQ4 2.0 had the spirit lore rules, so that shamans were not the only people with some power over spirits, and normal people had some folk lore etc. > Shamanic Abilities > Not having seen the system, I agree with Loren from what little I can work out. > SORCERY > Consider changing the name of this chapter and the name of the > magic system with it. Why? It has become increasingly apparent to > I am in mild agreement with Loren, but of his alternative names only the term 'WIZARDRY' really seems to also accomadate its use by the Mostali, the Brithini, Vadeli, and Kralorelans. But I also do not have a big problem with retaining the current name. > > Adepts > In traditional magical literature written in English the > Adept is the highest grade of magician possible. An Adept should > be superior to a Magus, Wizard, or whatever. I don't expect the > terminology to change in RQ but it makes me wince every time I > see it. Most neo-pagans who've read RQ have the same reaction. > I seem to recall that Adepts were the highest grade in the first sorcery draft, any reason why it appears to have been changed back? > Duration Table > It's stuffed. Zzzabur's feats would be impossible using this > system. Same with the Range table. Since duration has always been > the game-balance-buster (e.g. Halcyon var Enkorth) and on occasion > I will admit that game-balance isn't completely evil let's use > the same fix we used for Divine Extension, which could stuff > game-balance as effectively as Duration (e.g. Platewalker). MP > used to power a wizardry spell do not begin to regenerate until > the spell has expired. In addition MP borrowed from a crystal or > MP storage device or spirit or whatever cannot be recharged until > the spell they powered has expired. This ban on magic point > regeneration while the spell remains should be true, not only for > sorcery, ahem wizardry, but for all magic systems, a meta-rule of > magic if you will, and could go into the Magic Overview chapter > along with the other meta-rules. Complete agreement. I presume that this Lorens comments mean that the linear duration and range made it from the first draft, and I too hate the linear tables. I like Lorens fix (which means Argin Terror can still cast 3 month long spells using the MPs of his giant bound Pow spirits, but PCs are much more limited). I think that sorcerers should have the potential to be very powerful, and the linear tables really cut their potential, and don't really aid play balance much until adept sorcerers start wandering around (at which point I think the sorcerers begin to lose vs. Shamans/Priests if stuck with the linear tables). Divine Extension definately needs a fix, too. Platewalker aside, why haven't the SunDome Temple in Sun County used their big truestone to cast Shield 40 with Extension 28 (!!!!!!!!!!!) on a few of the Rune Lords, giving them 80 ots of armour and countermagic for a period of time well in excess of their lifespan. Instant herodom, and just requires that you get together the requisite number of priests, cast the spell immediately (so it can be regained from that point according to RQ3) and thenyour priests sit around for a couple of days regaining it. > Bring back the RQ3 tables for Duration and Range. They > aren't all bad, they just need a limit. > Yes indeed. Rights for Sorcerers! Give them a break! IMHO the biggest problem with sorcery was not overkill at high levels (HVA was grotesque, but so are Platewalker and Adull Headshrink), but lack of playability at low levels. Sorcery at low power was just too much of a lottery (18% chance of casting Damage Boosting 14). > CREATURES > I realize that this chapter is incomplete. It's still very good. > > Madness Spirits (193) > Consider including a few more Emotion/Madness spirits such > as Sloth, Greed, Cannibalism, Sexual Frenzy, Depression, > Hallucinations, Hunger, Thirst, Satiety (the victim won't eat), > Murderousness, Suicidal Tendencies, and the whole modern catalog > of psychiatric disorders explained as possessing spirits. I'd > also like to see spirits/demons that can make people into > Lycanthropes, Vampires, Berserkers, dogs into Barghests, corpses > into Ghouls, and so on. For instance, we know from RQ3 that Ghoul > spirits possess dead bodies to create Ghouls, but we've never > seen a description of such a spirit or what happens if one of > those spirits possesses a living body. > Yes. I would like the spirit plane ecology to be as wild and wooly as possible, and less of these generic rules type spirits (like Magic Spirits, Intellect Spirits, etc.), or at least more description of what they actually are or might be rather than just having spirits defined by their abilities. > > 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA03152; Sat, 22 Jan 94 23:55:29 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA27058; Sun, 23 Jan 94 00:55:17 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 23 Jan 94 0:55:22 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 23 Jan 94 0:54:58 EST From: David Cake To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Loren's comments on RQ:AiG, I of II Date: Sun, 23 Jan 94 13:54:12 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: > INTRODUCTION > I like it, but it seems odd to see this huge essay (14 pp of 10 > point Times) on Glorantha, including a bibliography, in the > chapter that is supposed to entice new readers to buy the book. I > made the same error in the 1st draft of my own book, so I'm > sensitive to it. The essay itself is terrific if the reader has > already committed to Glorantha (bravo!), but I think that the > message of an INTRODUCTION should be, "This Game Is FUN. Buy It," > rather than "This game is like studying history." Keep the > Glorantha essay and all the other stuff, but put it in its own > chapter; chapter 15 should have all the deep Glorantha info, not > just part of it. That said, it wouldn't hurt to start RQ4 with an > *brief* overview of Glorantha (no more than 2 pages) like that in > the beginning of RQ2. > Yes, the introdiction should be real brief, and start from the point of view of 'this is the sort of things you do, this is what you can be, this is what you can meet', rather than 'this is an interesting universe with a long and rich and complex history'. > Random Method of Character Creation > Do you really want to make "4d6 keep the top 3d6 as in > AD&Dv1" the standard method of rolling characters? I think it > should be optional, as with all the other methods presented. IMO > the standard method should be to roll the characteristics > straight, as we RQers have always done. Bypass the trap of stat > inflation. > Well, 4d6 shoose three should be merely a suggested option. Some people like higher than average stats (it helps explain why so many PCs end up as Rune level :-)) > Battle Magic vs Spirit Magic > Agreed with all of Lorens comments, and double for hating the term 'Battle Magic' (I'm not repeating myself, am I :-)) > Adventurer Culture/Profession Tables > After Lorens enthusiastic comments I await with great interest, and I only hope it retains the flexibilty of the second draft, while being better organised. > Skill versus Skill > If we can possibly remove the additional die roll in this > section let's do it. How about we use the rule given in Sun > County and the other recent RQ3 publications? If two characters > use skills against each other and both succeed, then whoever > rolled lower wins. This keeps the integrity of the RQ meta-rule > that "low is good" better than adopting the pendragon-style > "highest success wins" rule, and to be frank I'd rather have a > quick, consistent and reasonable rule than a perfect rule with > extra die rolling and a table consultation. > An extra 'meta-rule' which might be worthwhile adding is that specials always beat sucesses and criticals always specials, etc. This stacks the adds slighly in favour of high skills more than at present, but that is not too bad. It also means than people with skills over 100% continue to gain an advantage, albeit small. > TIME AND LEARNING I am glad to see that this has improvd, it definately needed work. > COMBAT > I'm still skeptical of the new combat phase structure, but it's a > lot better than the move by SR rules in RQ3 (since 2 movement > phases are better than 10) so I'll give it a try. It also appears > to be aimed at those who play out their battles with miniature > figures on a battleboard, and I don't play that way. Try to keep > in mind that not all RQers collect, paint, and use miniature > figures. > Actually, I use Lego Men (the mediaval ones, of course), and I have recently received email from somone who not only also uses Lego figure, but built a model of Gringles Pawnshop from Lego :-) But we need two sets of rules, really, a figure and a non-figure set. > > Weapons Tables > These are quite good. It's hard to imagine improvements in > the weapons tables, but these manage it. To be specific, I like > the Category/Group distinction and the percentage relationships > between similar weapons. One thing seems odd, though. Are sling > stones and bullets really impaling weapons as implied by the note > at the bottom of that table? Also, since bolos are used by the > Bird-Lizard-riding pygmies of Prax, shouldn't they be included on > the weapons tables? I thought only outlandish weapons were to be > excluded from the main weapons tables. BTW, have you thought > about including comprehensive weapon and armor tables in an > appendix, with all the outlandish items that would never be found > in a Manirian or Lunar campaign but are a necessary part of a > world-spanning campaign or one set on another game-world? > Please make this table comprehensive, and include all the obscure weapons. You may not use Naginata or Long-bows in your Gloranthan campaign, but they may well crop up in mine (for example, longbows were quite available in my Fronelan campaign, from the Rathorelans). I approve of having a Glorantha based product in as much as you put extra things in, but please don't leave stuff out because it doesn't fit your idea of a Gloranthan camapign. Have a short section on weapon availabilty if you really want to make the point clear. > Is it necessary to mention that the various metal armors are > made of Bronze? You don't mention that all the weapons are made > of Bronze, yet it's equally true. They may be bronze in > Glorantha, but that is *assumed* in Glorantha, and it makes the > table impossible to use as-is on other game-worlds. While we > rightly want to emphasize Glorantha, we should not create > additional barriers against those who would use RQ4 with other > worlds. > Same point as before, don't make life unnesessarily difficult for the non-Gloranthans. > (parts of Lorens post that I either agreed with or did not have strong opinions on I simply deleted) > whoah, > +++++++++++++++++++++++23 > Loren Miller internet: MILLERL@wharton.upenn.edu > "Enough sound bites. Let's get to work." -- Ross Perot sound bite > Cheers Dave Cake  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA06088; Sun, 23 Jan 94 01:31:01 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA29060; Sun, 23 Jan 94 02:30:45 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 23 Jan 94 2:30:53 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 23 Jan 94 2:30:35 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: RQ4:AiG comments/questions Date: Sat, 22 Jan 1994 23:30:20 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: The Renown value would be more useful if there were guidelines for changing it during play. Is there any bonus that applies to special tactics? There are no longer Cavalry horses? Any horse can be ridden into combat, but war horses are better horses? Were the DEX restrictions on shamans, priests/acolytes, and adepts dropped? It no longer takes a Craft roll to make an enchanted item? I always thought it was nice that characters had to take a non-game skill. What's the rationale for dropping the Strengthening Enchantment? I thought it was fairly nice but innocuous? 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA07699; Sun, 23 Jan 94 02:16:08 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA29733; Sun, 23 Jan 94 03:15:40 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 23 Jan 94 3:15:56 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 23 Jan 94 3:15:38 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RQ:Glorantha Character Sheet Date: Sun, 23 Jan 1994 00:15:17 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: > Well, I will also raise my voice in opposition to the alphabetical >order of skills on character sheets. My reason is because I find that a large >proportion of character skills are of the sort that are not possessed in the >general population, and so at least half (if using RQ4, maybe a third for RQ3) >of a characters skills would not be on the standard templete, especially >considering languages, and the RQ4 growth in different Crafts and Lores. > SO the big problem with alphabetical order is that a large proportion >of skills end up being written in at the end of the list out of order anyway, >so it doesn't really work. Uh, you're complaining about something you haven't seen. There's a reasonable amount of space under Craft, Lore, and Speak to write in skills. I also have a variant where there's an extra slot under each skill that has subskills, but I didn't like that one much, and when we made characters tonight, I don't think we ended up with a single subskill. 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA17108; Sun, 23 Jan 94 20:35:22 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25868; Sun, 23 Jan 94 21:33:11 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 23 Jan 94 21:35:09 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 23 Jan 94 21:32:51 EST From: lyle@ecn.purdue.edu (Lyle Youngblood) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Unsubscribe Date: Sun, 23 Jan 94 13:25:00 -0500 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: unsubscribe  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA04219; Sun, 23 Jan 94 00:23:46 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA27797; Sun, 23 Jan 94 01:23:36 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 23 Jan 94 1:23:39 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 23 Jan 94 1:23:30 EST From: graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Loren's comments on RQ:AiG, II of II Date: Sun, 23 Jan 94 17:23:06 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: David Cake writes in reply to Loren's review: >If this is basically the same as RQ4 draft 2.0 then I thought that it was a >bit fireworksy. But having this section included is very definately a must, >these questions really need to be clearly stated somewhere (and neither RQ2 or >RQ3 did so.) I agree with both of your views. I've never liked flashy special effects for magic, which I've always liked to be quiet and subtle, but some official stance has to be taken. Count another vote against "Battle Magic". Horrible term. >> Extension spell (146) >> Extension and extended spells cannot be regained until they >> expire. Good call. >> >And this is the sort of simple fix I would like for sorcery instead of any of >this sacrificing permanent POW rubbish. Agreed. Have they kept the linear table from the draft 2.0? (A question to those who've seen the latest draft, not David obviously) >> SORCERY >> Consider changing the name of this chapter and the name of the >> magic system with it. Why? It has become increasingly apparent to >> >I am in mild agreement with Loren, but of his alternative names only >the term 'WIZARDRY' really seems to also accomadate its use by the Mostali, >the Brithini, Vadeli, and Kralorelans. > But I also do not have a big problem with retaining the current name. Same mild agreement. A suggestion: why not call it "Adept's Magic", in the same way the others are called spirit magic and divine magic? >MP >> used to power a wizardry spell do not begin to regenerate until >> the spell has expired. In addition MP borrowed from a crystal or >> MP storage device or spirit or whatever cannot be recharged until >> the spell they powered has expired. This ban on magic point >> regeneration while the spell remains should be true, not only for >> sorcery, ahem wizardry, but for all magic systems, a meta-rule of >> magic if you will, and could go into the Magic Overview chapter >> along with the other meta-rules. One of the simplest ways of handling it. I proposed a similar idea around the middle of last year, but combined it with scrapping Duration entirely: I thought the inability to regenerate MP would be a strong enough limitation. Around the same time the idea of the Sorcerer's Twin serving a similar purpose came along (sorry I can't remember the correct source), and I preferred that concept. It's a pity that idea didn't make it into this draft. >Yes indeed. Rights for Sorcerers! Give them a break! You have my complete support. The problem with the second draft sorcery was that I could see no reason to play a sorcerer: they had no significant abilities that made up for the enormous time and effort it takes to become a sorcerer. And now for my question: what have they done with Fatigue and Encumberance? Is it the same system as in the Draft 2.0, where the bonus is added on to the dice roll, rather than subtracted from the chance?  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA14929; Sun, 23 Jan 94 19:44:22 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA24087; Sun, 23 Jan 94 20:43:06 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 23 Jan 94 20:44:10 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 23 Jan 94 20:43:02 EST From: Carl Fink To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RuneQuest: Adventures In Glorantha Date: Sun, 23 Jan 1994 20:42:51 -0500 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: gharris@Jade.Tufts.EDU (George Harris) writes: G> Well, I hate the unified hit location, and not because it's new. It >seems to be to be a change for change's sake. It doesn't make the game >better in any way, and it removes an important (I feel) and realistic >feature that no other game incorporates. Actually, it was for the sake of speed, and space.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA14935; Sun, 23 Jan 94 19:44:25 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA24166; Sun, 23 Jan 94 20:44:13 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 23 Jan 94 20:44:17 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 23 Jan 94 20:43:14 EST From: Carl Fink To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Loren's comments on RQ:AiG, II of II Date: Sun, 23 Jan 1994 20:42:53 -0500 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: David Cake writes: >I hate the term Battle Magic a lot. The ONLY thing that it has got going for >it is to appeal to the RQ2 conservatives. Common Magic is bearable, but I >think that it remains Spirit Magic to me. > Battle magic definately hails back to the dark old days (pre-RuneQues >of D&D (obviously the term was invented before the publication of RQ1 :-), an >thus in the dark ages) and reflects a very combat oriented idea of life. I >guess that Humakti call their spells Battle Magic, but I can't see it being >a term used by the Ernalda cultists. > Why not retitle the 'Spirit Magic' chapter 'The Spirit World', and >put shamans and Spirit Lore descriptions and spirit plane encounters, etc. >in it? What we wanted to do was have separate names for shaman-learned spells and priest-learned spells, even if they have the same mechanics. I gather "battle magic" isn't acceptable. We can't use "spirit magic" for both, though, for reasons I've already mentioned. Suggestions? D>Complete agreement. I presume that this Lorens comments mean that the linear >duration and range made it from the first draft, and I too hate the linear >tables. I like Lorens fix (which means Argin Terror can still cast 3 month >long spells using the MPs of his giant bound Pow spirits, but PCs are much >more limited). I think that sorcerers should have the potential to be very >powerful, and the linear tables really cut their potential, and don't really >aid play balance much until adept sorcerers start wandering around (at which >point I think the sorcerers begin to lose vs. Shamans/Priests if stuck with >the linear tables). Does the word "bookkeeping" strike fear into your heart? It should. This was my original suggestion, folks, and we tried it. The bookkeeping involved in keeping track of sorcerors just became unwieldy.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA17144; Sun, 23 Jan 94 20:35:54 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25981; Sun, 23 Jan 94 21:35:41 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 23 Jan 94 21:35:47 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 23 Jan 94 21:35:30 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: magic name; DUration Date: Sun, 23 Jan 1994 18:35:09 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: > What we wanted to do was have separate names for shaman-learned spells >and priest-learned spells, even if they have the same mechanics. I >gather "battle magic" isn't acceptable. We can't use "spirit magic" for >both, though, for reasons I've already mentioned. Suggestions? It sounds like you prefer using "spirit magic" for shamanists, and need a new name for the spells themselves. "Low magic" would work, if you hadn't used that for sorcery/wizardry. "Common magic" would work, if you didn't already have common divine magic. "Personal magic" isn't quite accurate, since sorcery is also personal. "Small magic?" "Daily Magic?" "Household Magic?" >D>Complete agreement. I presume that this Lorens comments mean that the linear > >duration and range made it from the first draft, and I too hate the linear > >tables. > Does the word "bookkeeping" strike fear into your heart? It should. >This was my original suggestion, folks, and we tried it. The >bookkeeping involved in keeping track of sorcerors just became unwieldy. Bookkeeping is bad, but the fact that sorcerers used to be able to cast spells that lasted over a season was a Good Thing. If you really think the old way was broken (I'm not convinced), why not switch to a Fibonnacci progression: Levels of Duration Minutes none 10 1 20 2 30 3 50 4 80 5 130 6 210 7 440 8 650 9 1090 10 1740 Or do what you do now, but have POW turn the duration into days squared; at least that way it would be possible to cast a multiple-year spell. 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA18181; Sun, 23 Jan 94 20:51:42 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA26537; Sun, 23 Jan 94 21:51:25 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 23 Jan 94 21:51:36 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 23 Jan 94 21:51:21 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: New damage bonus Date: Sun, 23 Jan 1994 18:51:07 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: Oliver said about the new damage bonus: >However, we are concerned that at first >glance, it may put off RQ2/RQIII players, or those concerned with >compatibility with RQIII scenario packs (though conversion can be >very simple, i.e. +1D4 is +1 or +2, each +1D6 is roughly +3). I've >even considered including the old (die based) damage bonus chart to >use as an optional rule. Given that you've changed armor and damage, you're already incompatible. Therefore, there's no point in using the old damage bonus as an optional rule. And even if you did, the old values aren't compatible with the new armor and weapon damage. I don't think I've heard a damage bonus single complaint from my players, BTW. (They're more concerned with stuff like "what happened to my lamellar armor" or "what's the range on the bone bow I took from the dragonewt?" 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA05980; Sun, 23 Jan 94 22:53:50 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA00845; Sun, 23 Jan 94 23:53:34 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 23 Jan 94 23:53:43 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 23 Jan 94 23:53:28 EST From: "Newton Hughes" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: skill versus skill Date: Sun, 23 Jan 94 22:52:24 CST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: Loren J. Miller said, among other things, >Skill versus Skill > If we can possibly remove the additional die roll in this >section let's do it. How about we use the rule given in Sun >County and the other recent RQ3 publications? If two characters >use skills against each other and both succeed, then whoever >rolled lower wins. This keeps the integrity of the RQ meta-rule >that "low is good" better than adopting the pendragon-style >"highest success wins" rule, and to be frank I'd rather have a >quick, consistent and reasonable rule than a perfect rule with >extra die rolling and a table consultation. How's this for reasonable? When 2 characters use skills against one another, one skill is the offensive skill and the other is the defensive skill. Attacking, hiding, and sneaking are offensive skills; dodging, listening, and scanning are defensive skills. The character using the defensive skill has to match the offensive skill's level of success (crit, special, normal, etc.) to keep the offensive skill from succeeding. This method is consistent with the way dodging works, and is very close to how Elric! handles it. How about it?  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA06488; Sun, 23 Jan 94 23:10:11 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01316; Mon, 24 Jan 94 00:09:58 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 24 Jan 94 0:10:04 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 24 Jan 94 0:09:50 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: skill versus skill Date: Sun, 23 Jan 1994 21:09:32 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: At 22:52 94-01-23 -0600, Newton Hughes wrote: > When 2 characters use skills against one another, one skill is the >offensive skill and the other is the defensive skill. Attacking, >hiding, and sneaking are offensive skills; dodging, listening, and >scanning are defensive skills. The character using the defensive >skill has to match the offensive skill's level of success (crit, >special, normal, etc.) to keep the offensive skill from succeeding. I like it. My only reservation is that you might have skill vs skill just to see who wins a contest (e.g. who can make a better pot using Craft/Pottery)... 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA10501; Mon, 24 Jan 94 00:05:41 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA02654; Mon, 24 Jan 94 01:05:24 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 24 Jan 94 1:05:34 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 24 Jan 94 1:05:04 EST From: Scott Ferrier To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: RQ4 Battle Magic? Date: Mon, 24 Jan 1994 01:01:34 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: >> What we wanted to do was have separate names for shaman-learned sp > >>and priest-learned spells, even if they have the same mechanics. I >>gather "battle magic" isn't acceptable. We can't use "spirit magic" >>both, though, for reasons I've already mentioned. Suggestions? > >It sounds like you prefer using "spirit magic" for shamanists, and >need a new name for the spells themselves. "Low magic" would work, >if you hadn't used that for sorcery/wizardry. "Common magic" would >work, if you didn't already have common divine magic. "Personal >magic" isn't quite accurate, since sorcery is also personal. "Small >magic?" "Daily Magic?" "Household Magic?" > If I remember correctly the reason that was given as to why "Battle Magic" was used in place of spirit magic was to make a distiction between the shawmans spirits and the magic received from a players cult. Therefore I would like to nominate "Cult Magic" in place of "Battle Magic." And my friend would like to put the name "Lesser Blessing" as an additional option. ....fsnamyack@trystero.com....(Scott Ferrier)..................... ..Captian of Chaos Crushers...(Valind League, Runequest Con '94).. ...."everyone know Stegosaurous no good on glacier"............... ..................................................................  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA11698; Mon, 24 Jan 94 00:39:31 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA03499; Mon, 24 Jan 94 01:39:15 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 24 Jan 94 1:39:18 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 24 Jan 94 1:39:01 EST From: Scott Ferrier To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Melee/Missle hit location Date: Mon, 24 Jan 1994 01:35:50 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: >> Well, I hate the unified hit location, and not because it's > >seems to be to be a change for change's sake. It doesn't make the > >better in any way, and it removes an important (I feel) and realist > >feature that no other game incorporates. > > Actually, it was for the sake of speed, and space. > That's fine, I'm sure all of us have realized RQ breakdown in a large scale combat (could take a couple of days to fight 100+ people/things). I would just like to keep the melee/missle option. As I have hunted, fenced, and have done several combat simulation ("hack and slash", and massive missle fire) I have come to respect that table and all the thought that went into it. Perhaps we can put it in the old "Optional Rules" appendix with the table for most of the common creatures with a couple of lines to explain the hows and whys to people so they can apply it to the more unusual creatures. ....fsnamyack@trystero.com....(Scott Ferrier)..................... ..Captian of Chaos Crushers...(Valind League, Runequest Con '94).. ..2nd in Trollball Superbowl '94.."What till next season, we eat YOU!" ..................................................................  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA12272; Mon, 24 Jan 94 00:53:06 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA03725; Mon, 24 Jan 94 01:52:57 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 24 Jan 94 1:52:59 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 24 Jan 94 1:52:44 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RQ4 Battle Magic? Date: Sun, 23 Jan 1994 22:52:25 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: >If I remember correctly the reason that was given as to why "Battle >Magic" was used in place of spirit magic was to make a distiction >between the shawmans spirits and the magic received from a players >cult. Therefore I would like to nominate "Cult Magic" in place of >"Battle Magic." And my friend would like to put the name "Lesser >Blessing" as an additional option. Right now there are 3 names: Battle magic (RQ3's spirit magic) Cult magic (Battle magic available from a cult) Spirit magic (Battle magic available from a shaman/spell spirit)  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA16444; Mon, 24 Jan 94 02:48:20 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA05351; Mon, 24 Jan 94 03:48:01 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 24 Jan 94 3:48:16 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 24 Jan 94 3:47:58 EST From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RuneQuest: Adventures in Glorantha Date: Mon, 24 Jan 1994 00:47:31 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: David Dunham writes in response to Oliver: >>Finally, as a general topic for discussion, there are two points I would >>be interested in seeing people's opinions on. The two changes we've >>made to combat that probably seem the most different are switching >>to a combined melee/missile hit location chart and switching to a linear >>damage bonus system. We feel that these changes speed and simplify >>combat significantly, but we also don't want to alienate RQ2/RQIII >>players with them. >Here's another take on compatibility: there aren't all that many modules >out there. Probably nobody has (or at least uses) more than 6 supplements >which have stats? Given that you're setting things up to release more than >6 in the future, don't sweat it. To build on this I would like to say that you will not alienate most people by simplying combat. A serious problem in many games, including RQ2, is attribute envy. By reducing the bonuses for strength you reduce the desirability of god-like strength and encourage players to make the best of a less than olympian character. >I've been using RQ2/Borderlands while playtesting RQ4. Yes, the damage >bonus and even the stats are wrong, but it's close enough when I want some >quick Praxians the players will probably trounce with horse archery anyway. This is a good example of simplicity in the rules being guided by the demands of play. Keep it simple, keep it flowing and don`t let the rules usurp the narrative flow. Regards -- Guy Robinson --  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA14017; Mon, 24 Jan 94 11:46:59 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA22037; Mon, 24 Jan 94 10:57:02 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 24 Jan 94 11:07:27 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 24 Jan 94 10:50:16 EST From: "Loren J. Miller" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Loren's comments on RQ:AiG, II of II Date: 24 Jan 1994 10:45:54 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1015FC044F7@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Carl Fink > D>Complete agreement. I presume that this Lorens comments mean that the linear > >duration and range made it from the first draft, and I too hate the linear > >tables. I like Lorens fix (which means Argin Terror can still cast 3 month > >long spells using the MPs of his giant bound Pow spirits, but PCs are much > >more limited). I think that sorcerers should have the potential to be very > >powerful, and the linear tables really cut their potential, and don't really > >aid play balance much until adept sorcerers start wandering around (at which > >point I think the sorcerers begin to lose vs. Shamans/Priests if stuck with > >the linear tables). > > Does the word "bookkeeping" strike fear into your heart? It should. > This was my original suggestion, folks, and we tried it. The > bookkeeping involved in keeping track of sorcerors just became unwieldy. Can you shed a little light on this? What kind of book-keeping dod you find to be necessary with the no-regeneration-until-expiration rule? Would an extra table for sorcery types with extended spells on it help? You practically need an extra sheet to keep track of sorcery spells anyway. i.e. Spell Name Date Cast Expires MP MP Source Damage Boost 3/5/1621 3/5/1622 19 Spirit #3 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA06481; Mon, 24 Jan 94 10:28:51 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA22538; Mon, 24 Jan 94 11:08:16 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 24 Jan 94 11:19:20 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 24 Jan 94 10:56:33 EST From: "Loren J. Miller" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: skill versus skill Date: 24 Jan 1994 10:53:38 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1017A901019@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Newton Hughes > When 2 characters use skills against one another, one skill is the > offensive skill and the other is the defensive skill. Attacking, > hiding, and sneaking are offensive skills; dodging, listening, and > scanning are defensive skills. The character using the defensive > skill has to match the offensive skill's level of success (crit, > special, normal, etc.) to keep the offensive skill from succeeding. Actually I had already assumed that a crit beat a special beat a success beat a fail beat a fumble, and within those levels of success the lowest roll won. However, that wasn't in the rule as I rewrote it, and it also wasn't in the draft. So, Carl &c, what do you think? 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA17084; Mon, 24 Jan 94 12:17:47 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA23258; Mon, 24 Jan 94 11:22:48 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 24 Jan 94 11:32:31 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 24 Jan 94 11:15:42 EST From: "Newton Hughes" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: re: skill vs. skill Date: Mon, 24 Jan 94 10:14:34 CST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <101CC4578A7@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> My suggestion was: > When 2 characters use skills against one another, one skill is the >offensive skill and the other is the defensive skill. Attacking, >hiding, and sneaking are offensive skills; dodging, listening, and >scanning are defensive skills. The character using the defensive >skill has to match the offensive skill's level of success (crit, >special, normal, etc.) to keep the offensive skill from succeeding. David Dunham's comment was: >I like it. My only reservation is that you might have skill vs skill jut >to see who wins a contest (e.g. who can make a better pot using >Craft/Pottery)... Yes, that'd be different. In that case I'd say as long as both sides achieved the same level of success, the winner would be decided by the character judging the contest, based on vital issues like which pot had art more flattering to the judge (say Wahaza-at-Midnight judges the pot-making contest; a pot with elaborate detailed depictions of Wahaza's exploits at Moonbroth is going to have the edge against any equally well made pot, or against technically better ones, for that matter.) (Not that Wahaza would give a damn about pots, maybe well-made weapons.) Winning a contest like that is more of a role-playing opportunity than a skill roll, I think. Having the skill is necessary but not sufficient by itself. In any contest between skilled artists either there will be lots of draws, or the result is going to be arbitrary to some extent. In this case you do not want a rule that decides whose pot is better, because life isn't that simple.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA07188; Mon, 24 Jan 94 10:39:17 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA23643; Mon, 24 Jan 94 11:33:46 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 24 Jan 94 11:38:18 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 24 Jan 94 11:18:02 EST From: kxc22@po.cwru.edu (Karl Crandall) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RQ4 Battle Magic? Date: Mon, 24 Jan 94 11:17:47 -0500 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <101D635633F@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >>If I remember correctly the reason that was given as to why "Battle >>Magic" was used in place of spirit magic was to make a distiction >>between the shawmans spirits and the magic received from a players >>cult. Therefore I would like to nominate "Cult Magic" in place of >>"Battle Magic." And my friend would like to put the name "Lesser >>Blessing" as an additional option. > >Right now there are 3 names: > >Battle magic (RQ3's spirit magic) >Cult magic (Battle magic available from a cult) >Spirit magic (Battle magic available from a shaman/spell spirit) I haven't played more then a session or two of Runequest but I have friend who plays RQ and I learned a lot of the terminology from him. I don't really like the term battle magic just off the cuff however the only term I have come up with to replace it is the rather humorous: SPOOK MAGIC! Karl Crandall P.S. I would like to add that although I can't add to the discussion due to a lack of RQ playing experience I find the discusion quite lively, helpful and in good taste. Karl Crandall kxc22@po.cwru.edu  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA09862; Mon, 24 Jan 94 11:04:14 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA26331; Mon, 24 Jan 94 12:03:55 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 24 Jan 94 12:04:06 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 24 Jan 94 12:02:33 EST From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Loren's comments on RQ:AiG, II of II Date: Mon, 24 Jan 94 12:02:13 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: <10294293FED@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Paul R. here. We played with a rule like this where the sorceror had to use at least one point of personal or Twin POW in every spell, and other MPs from other sources were ok. Worked pretty well. Oh, this was with NO Duration skill. Spells lasted until ended. MUCH simpler. - Paul  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA10027; Mon, 24 Jan 94 11:06:06 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA26521; Mon, 24 Jan 94 12:05:49 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 24 Jan 94 12:05:56 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 24 Jan 94 12:04:23 EST From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: skill versus skill Date: Mon, 24 Jan 94 12:04:16 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: <1029BFF4926@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> We use a Pendragon-like rule where high roll in a category (Crit, Special, etc.) wins. Works very well, in my opinion. Low roll just doesn't work right - if the guy with a 10% skill succeeds at all, he is likely to beat a Master with a 100% skill. - Paul  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA10744; Mon, 24 Jan 94 11:12:24 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA27097; Mon, 24 Jan 94 12:12:02 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 24 Jan 94 12:12:09 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 24 Jan 94 12:11:29 EST From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Changing the Terms is Very Bad for Continuity Date: Mon, 24 Jan 1994 09:10:54 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: <102BA526AC0@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Although I can sympathise with people`s dislike of the term Battle Magic and the like I feel honour bound to point out something pretty urgent. If changing the damage bonus, for example, is a block to compatability then it is nothing like changing the names of something like all the magic systems. Although the final draft should be consistent about the terms it uses internally, I must recommend that each of three existing terms for Common Magic, namely Common Magic itself, Battle Magic and Spirit Magic should be clearly identified as differing names for the same kind of magic. If we add terms then we simply make the situation more complex. The correct to handle this is to retain the term Common Magic, as this is the correct term for the Orlanthi culture, and explain when and why the terms Battle Magic and Spirit Magic may be used. Correct in terms of my estimate about time needed to rewrite and and in terms of my perception of Orlanthi culture. I am willing to debate this point. Otherwise someone is going to pick up an existing RQ supplement and get confused with the new terms that might be devised. As guide-line I recommend that names are provided from the perspective of the Orlanthi culture, with attempts to perserve naming conventions to avoid confusions. This kiboshes the Master name for Rune Lord which is not my sole response to Loren_s review of RQIV but the first that I can provide given the fact that I am driven to prioritise my responses at the moment. Regards -- Guy Robinson --  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA11085; Mon, 24 Jan 94 11:15:54 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA27484; Mon, 24 Jan 94 12:15:42 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 24 Jan 94 12:15:49 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 24 Jan 94 12:14:49 EST From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: magic name; DUration Date: Mon, 24 Jan 94 12:14:13 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: <102C87D3940@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> In our (Paul & Mike) original writeup we tried to solve the bookkeepping problem by having NO Duration skill, just a certain amount of magic that could be maintained. This worked well for us.We actually had a meta-rule: ALL magic is either Instant or Maintained. Spell spirits actually perform the spirit magics and maintain them, Gods maintain Divine magic (with duration set by the Great COmpromise) and Wizardry is either Active or is maintained by the Sorcerer's Twin. This works well and there is much less bookkeepping. We could do another writeup on this if there is interest. - Paul Reilly  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA11464; Mon, 24 Jan 94 11:19:06 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA27804; Mon, 24 Jan 94 12:18:45 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 24 Jan 94 12:18:55 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 24 Jan 94 12:18:06 EST From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: New damage bonus Date: Mon, 24 Jan 94 12:18:00 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: <102D6A204D2@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> New damage bonus, damage for weapons, armor values, etc.: I never heard any complaints on the old way either. I think changing to a system where the damage is based on the STR/SIZ of the damager and modified by weapon type could be good, but the kind of changes in the draft aren't necessarily worth making. Also, big creatures can no longer "graze" you: you are either destroyed or not. I just saw a nature show where a photographer (without armor) got grazed by a hippo for a few points of damage: this would be impossible under the new draft.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA11714; Mon, 24 Jan 94 11:22:22 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA28200; Mon, 24 Jan 94 12:22:09 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 24 Jan 94 12:22:15 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 24 Jan 94 12:21:26 EST From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Melee/Missle hit location Date: Mon, 24 Jan 94 12:21:21 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: <102E4C87843@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Separate Melee/ missile location tables were good. We also put spears and similar weapons onto the Missile table (due to years of SCA experience - limbs and head are hard targets for a long spear, easy for a cutting weapon.)  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA12915; Mon, 24 Jan 94 11:37:17 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA29574; Mon, 24 Jan 94 12:36:50 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 24 Jan 94 12:36:57 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 24 Jan 94 12:36:18 EST From: Malcolm Cohen To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RQ4 Battle Magic? Date: Mon, 24 Jan 94 17:32:02 WET Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <103242949C7@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Here's my 2p: > >Right now there are 3 names: > > > >Battle magic (RQ3's spirit magic) > >Cult magic (Battle magic available from a cult) > >Spirit magic (Battle magic available from a shaman/spell spirit) (also suggested: Common Magic). Well, I actually like running with Spirit Magic given Paul(?)'s mods to make it more "spirit-like". If SM is run in that style (viz, thinking of each spell as the user talking to "helper spirits") then Spirit Magic is a very good name indeed. Ordering my dispreferences, the one I dislike most is Common Magic; the name is bland and generic-fantasy-like. Battle Magic comes a close second as a name which was widely despised (for its lack of flavour) in the RQ1/2 gaming circles I once moved in. How about "Low Magic" (contrasted with the "High Magic" of priests and sorcerors, not to mention the superior abilities of shamans)? Or "Power Magic" (it is based on POW, right - chance of casting being POW*5%?). Or (along the same lines) "Raw Magic". Actually, what is really all that wrong with calling it "Spirit Magic" and just noting that the theological term for it is "Cult Magic". (Actually, IMNSHO better names for the cult versions would be "Blessings" for Spirit Magic and "Miracles" for Divine Magic). -- ...........................Malcolm Cohen, NAG Ltd., Oxford, U.K. (malcolm@nag.co.uk)  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA15187; Mon, 24 Jan 94 11:54:06 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01274; Mon, 24 Jan 94 12:53:48 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 24 Jan 94 12:53:58 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 24 Jan 94 12:53:07 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Duration; hit locs Date: Mon, 24 Jan 1994 09:52:45 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: <1036BFC617A@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > We could do another writeup on this if there is interest. I never saw the first writeup of Instant vs Maintained magic... > Separate Melee/ missile location tables were good. We also put spears and >similar weapons onto the Missile table (due to years of SCA experience - limbs >and head are hard targets for a long spear, easy for a cutting weapon.) Good for accuracy; I was someone who proposed them for RQ3. But I find they slow down the GM. The important thing is the _effects_ of the rule: characters being disabled and out of a fight, and missing limbs. The simpler way you can accomplish the effect, the better (note that the Major Wound system from Pendragon has almost identical effects with no hit locations at all). >big creatures can no longer >"graze" you: you are either destroyed or not Probably not truly realistic, but animals are such wimps against reasonably equipped foes, I'd like to make them a threat again.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA22226; Mon, 24 Jan 94 12:53:38 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA05786; Mon, 24 Jan 94 13:49:45 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 24 Jan 94 13:53:30 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 24 Jan 94 13:48:32 EST From: Malcolm Cohen To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: New damage bonus Date: Mon, 24 Jan 94 18:47:06 WET Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1045883106E@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David said: > Oliver said about the new damage bonus: > >I've even considered including the old (die based) damage bonus chart to > >use as an optional rule. > > Given that you've changed armor and damage, you're already incompatible. > Therefore, there's no point in using the old damage bonus as an optional > rule. And even if you did, the old values aren't compatible with the new > armor and weapon damage. I must agree; if a die-based system were to be an optional rule it should have roughly the same expectation value for damage, PARTICULARLY in the medium-high human range, e.g. something like STR+SIZ: 25-26 27-28 29-30 31-32 33-34 35-36 Average (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) Damage +1 +d2 +d3 +d4 +d5 +d6 rather than the silly jump of +0/+d4. (+0/+d2/+d4 is not so bad for those who dislike d3's, but I changed the +d4 step in my own game way back because I thought it was too gross). -- ...........................Malcolm Cohen, NAG Ltd., Oxford, U.K. (malcolm@nag.co.uk)  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA28081; Mon, 24 Jan 94 13:57:52 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA12414; Mon, 24 Jan 94 14:57:38 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 24 Jan 94 14:57:46 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 24 Jan 94 14:57:12 EST From: "Newton Hughes" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: re: skill vs. skill Date: Mon, 24 Jan 94 13:54:54 CST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1057D875842@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> My suggestion was: > When 2 characters use skills against one another, one skill is the >offensive skill and the other is the defensive skill. Attacking, >hiding, and sneaking are offensive skills; dodging, listening, and >scanning are defensive skills. The character using the defensive >skill has to match the offensive skill's level of success (crit, >special, normal, etc.) to keep the offensive skill from succeeding. Loren J. Miller responded: >Actually I had already assumed that a crit beat a special beat a >success beat a fail beat a fumble, and within those levels of success >the lowest roll won. However, that wasn't in the rule as I rewrote it, >and it also wasn't in the draft. Well, my point was that when both sides scored the same level of success the defensive skill took precedence. I don't like using the lowest/highest roll to decide a winner, because it isn't compatible with the way dodging is done and doesn't give the defender enough of an advantage. --Newton  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA29423; Mon, 24 Jan 94 20:20:23 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA08185; Mon, 24 Jan 94 21:20:09 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 24 Jan 94 21:20:16 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 24 Jan 94 21:19:53 EST From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Loren's comments on RQ:AiG, II of II Date: Mon, 24 Jan 94 12:03:06 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: <10BDE922124@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Carl Fink writes: > > Does the word "bookkeeping" strike fear into your heart? It should. > This was my original suggestion, folks, and we tried it. The > bookkeeping involved in keeping track of sorcerors just became unwieldy. > Maybe so, but the current version seems singularly pointless if it's the same linear table that was in the draft. I find it hard to beleive you ever see someone actually use any of the non-sacrifice duration extension, and in some cases the sacrifice seemed too good. The range extension is even sillier. ------------------------------ 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 AA29437; Mon, 24 Jan 94 20:20:47 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA08201; Mon, 24 Jan 94 21:20:33 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 24 Jan 94 21:20:39 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 24 Jan 94 21:20:24 EST From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RuneQuest: Adventures in Glorantha Date: Mon, 24 Jan 94 12:11:28 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: <10BE0C45DD2@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com writes: > > To build on this I would like to say that you will not alienate most > people by simplying combat. A serious problem in many games, including > RQ2, is attribute envy. By reducing the bonuses for strength you reduce > the desirability of god-like strength and encourage players to make the > best of a less than olympian character. > Frankly, it strikes me as a bad defense of reducing distintion to use the value people place on attributes. If you use the distributed option, no one whines about other people's attributes either; while I'm not claiming that RQ4 does this, I don't think a situation where a wider range of attributes produces the same result is a Good Thing; ideally, even one point of difference should MAKE a difference, or why even have the distinction? > > This is a good example of simplicity in the rules being guided by the > demands of play. Keep it simple, keep it flowing and don`t let the rules > usurp the narrative flow. > It rather depends what one expects the rules to do for you, doesn't it? ------------------------------ 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 AA05759; Mon, 24 Jan 94 15:12:09 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA18554; Mon, 24 Jan 94 16:10:29 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 24 Jan 94 16:12:01 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 24 Jan 94 16:10:19 EST From: gharris@Jade.Tufts.EDU To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: RQ:AiG Character Creation Date: Mon, 24 Jan 94 15:51:14 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: <106B578298F@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Well, last night I got my first taste of the new character creation system, and I thought I'd give a short overview of my impressions. I'm still plowing through the rules, and will give longer, more detailed critiques of the various sections in the near future. Overall, I found the new system to be fairly frustrating. As you may recall, in the 2.0 draft, you could select one or more groups of skills under professions, at or below the level the GM has set for the game, and pay for these from a pool of points that could also be used to purchase wealth, magic and other stuff. Well, in the new version, you get to select one profession. That's it. You get something called "background" points or some such, and can use them to purchase optional skills, wealth, magic, or something called "reknown" which seems to be something to try to force people to roleplay, which, as they say, wastes your time and annoys the pig. Now, the previous proposed system was a little complex but very flexible, allowing you to create a character that, say, spent the first five years of his life farming, then joined the Free Sartar army and fought for Orlanth and country for a few years, and has spent the last few years as a bandit in the hills of southern Sartar. Now, the new system hasn't addressed the complexity problem, still involving quarter points and one from column A and two from column B, but seems to have almost entirely eliminated the flexibility. It's perfectly adequate if you want to create a Farmer, or a Soldier, or a Bandit, but if you want to combine two or more professions, well, you are out of luck. This is very unfortunate, as the campaign we were creating these characters for was a Loskalmi campaign, which means you spend some of your life as a Farmer, then as a Knight, then as a Wizard. If this game is supposed to be able to support play in Glorantha, it would be nice if it were capable of handling Hrestoli Malkioni. Unfortunately, it isn't. I'd like to close by comparing this system to two other character creation systems on the market for successful games, GURPS and Call of Cthulhu. The GURPS system is fairly complex, but you can get through it very quickly if you have a simple character conception, and even if you have a sophisticated character conception, you can get the job done as easily as in the RQ:AiG system. You also have much more flexibility. GURPS rightly leaves the issue of what combination of professions is allowable to the GM, rather than making any com- bination of professions if not outright impossible, at least very difficult to achieve. CoC on the surface would seem to have a some- what similar system, as you can only choose one profession. However, CoC is much much simpler and manages to be more flexible as well. As you recall, you have one pool of points you can spend on the skills in your chosen profession, and another that you can spend on *any skills at all*. This allows you to create characters that are both professors of Archeology and amateur boxers, if you so choose and the GM allows. So, in closing, let me propose a vast simplification of the system, while simultaneously making it much more flexible. You choose a profession. This means you must spend at least half your skill points (which would give points for skills on a one-for-one basis, no fractions here) on the skills in that profession, with the mandatory skills in that profession having to have at least the level below the level of the campaign (so, if it were an expert campaign, you would have to have all mandatory skills at 60% or better), and none of the skills having a level greater than the level of the campaign (so, in the above example, no skills in the profession could be at a greater level than 75%). Then you can choose one or more other professions, if you wish, and spend the remainder of your skill points there, with no skill therein being greater than the level below the level of the campaign (so, if you bought a supplementary skill in the above example, it could be no greater than 60%). The rest of your points can be spent on magic, wealth, or whatever you wish. A system such as the above would be much simpler, much more flexible, and be no more abusable than the one proposed in the draft. It would be comparable in simplicity and flexibility with any character creation system in any game on the market today. I think *that* is a worthy goal to shoot for, and is the benchmark against which we should measure the proposed draft. -- George W. Harris gharris@jade.tufts.edu Dept. of Mathematics Tufts University Days, I remember cities. Nights, I dream about a perfect place. Days, I dive by the wreck. Nights, I swim in the blue lagoon.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA06330; Sun, 23 Jan 94 23:03:50 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01176; Mon, 24 Jan 94 00:03:40 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 24 Jan 94 0:03:43 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 24 Jan 94 0:03:23 EST From: graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Sorcery, again... Date: Mon, 24 Jan 94 16:02:51 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: Carl Fink writes: > Does the word "bookkeeping" strike fear into your heart? It should. >This was my original suggestion, folks, and we tried it. The >bookkeeping involved in keeping track of sorcerors just became >unwieldy. Well, yes it does, but that's why I'm going to try a Pendragon Pass style game for Dorastor (calling it DoomQuest after Nick Brooke's NoonQuest/MoonQuest system). The bookeeping involved in our last RQ3.5 game proved too much, and there weren't any sorcerers. As to sorcerers again: has anyone tried just using the skill limits for manipulation (manipulation skill/10 for each manipulation, total limit is spell skill/10, if I recall correctly) in the rq4 2.0 draft with the old table from rq3? The rq3 table began to be abusable when spells exceeded 1 day in length, and became very abusive after the limit exceeded a week. This was mainly due to daily regeneration of all magic points. Using the skill limits proposed in the rq4 draft 2.0 To get a spell duration of a day (21.33 hours) requires a 7 points of duration = skills of 70%+ in both the spell and Duration; to get 1 week (7.111 days) requires 10 points of duration = 100%+ plus in both skills. These ar just to get 1 point spells lasting for that length of time. Since the 1 day spell requires what would have been an adept in the old rules, and 1 week needs a magus, I don't see these as abusive: if you have the skills of a powerful wizard, you should be powerful. Graeme Lindsell a.k.a graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA16028; Mon, 24 Jan 94 16:53:16 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA26681; Mon, 24 Jan 94 17:52:52 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 24 Jan 94 17:53:04 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 24 Jan 94 17:52:34 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RQ:AiG Character Creation Date: Mon, 24 Jan 1994 14:52:21 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: <10869DF708A@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> George wrote: >It's >perfectly adequate if you want to create a Farmer, or a Soldier, or >a Bandit, but if you want to combine two or more professions, well, >you are out of luck. This is very unfortunate, as the campaign we >were creating these characters for was a Loskalmi campaign, which >means you spend some of your life as a Farmer, then as a Knight, >then as a Wizard. If this game is supposed to be able to support >play in Glorantha, it would be nice if it were capable of handling >Hrestoli Malkioni. Unfortunately, it isn't. I told my players that they were perfectly free to pick choices from their parent's profession (so you could easily be a Soldier with some Farmer skills). Only if they wanted skills from a different culture (like our Grazer who wanted Crossbow and Mace) would they have to pay double. The game presents Dragon Pass, and I don't think that decision should be changed. It ought to be easy enough to take Wizard, and spend choices from the Knight and Farmer lists. To get more detailed tables on the Hrestoli, you'd need to consult an appropriate supplement. (I'm currently working up Grazer tables, for instance, which reflect the peculiarities of Grazer custom.) Different opinions: 1) I seldom have a detailed conception in advance which I'm trying to build. 2) Character creation is not all that important since it's done so seldom. It's not worth a fancy system like the GURPS spreadsheet. To get rid of fractions, you'll have to multiply everything by 4 or even 8 (since you can buy skills to a lesser degree). I dislike fractions too, but I do like the base choice to buy a skill to campaign level being 1. 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA18639; Mon, 24 Jan 94 17:29:58 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA28827; Mon, 24 Jan 94 18:29:44 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 24 Jan 94 18:29:50 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 24 Jan 94 18:29:36 EST From: Mark S. c/o Tom Yates To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: RAG First Impressions Part One Date: Mon, 24 Jan 94 18:30:32 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: <10907E827B0@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> R:AG My First Impressions - Mark Sabalauskas Part One First off let me list the things that I thought were really neat. Renown is a great concept, although we need rules on how renown changes with play. Presumably this will be included in the Gamemastering section? I'm glad that you kept both methods of learning by experience. The new shaman rules are cool! The most exciting change is the amount of Gloranthan background in the rules book. Now for the details... I was sort of suprised to see Runes get such prominent play on page 2. It was my impression that these days Greg was treating runes as more like God-Learner constructs, and less like essential building blocks of the world. Of course, my impression could be incorrect. It might be nice if the mythology section on page 3 had a less theistic slant, and was more like the Cosmology section of Cults of Terror. On the whole, however, the completeness of the introduction is pleasing. You might want to mention what scale works best with battlemats. (page 14) Character creation: Perhaps you could talk about the other ways one can create character. Like the "sit down with the GM and discuss the type of character you'd like to play, and he/she tells you what skills and attributes you have" method. Or perhaps this sort of thing could be covered in the "Nobody plays RQ with all the rules" part of the Gamesmastering section. At first glance I dislike the invariant damage bonus, but I reserve judgment 'till I see how it plays. It was sad to see the way the earlier prior experience/profession rules got "dummyed down" in this draft. The new method is simpler, but there is a cost in flexibility. It was a whole lot easier under the earlier draft to create a "Raffles" type noble/theif for example. Creating Hrestoli Knights, Wizards, and Lords, which was a snap under the old system, is now either prohibitively expensive or absolutely impossible. Under the old system, my players would be glad to create Anti-Lunar freedom fighter based on the herder template, with a little "weekend foot warrior" thrown in. Now no one but a dedicated "arty-farty roleplayer" would choose the herder over the warrior profession template. And I don't think many would waste any of their 7 choices on herding skills. I realize that the Sartarite Warrior template has craft/herding listed as an opitional skill, but this is still not as detailed as the earlier method and in any event only 10 detailed professions are provided. At the very least the concept of basic cultural skills should be introduced, so that characters don't have to waste two background choices to learn how to sing. Starting Possessions: Does the Shrine/Temple possession indicate that you own the structure, belong to its preisthood, or lead it's preisthood? Shouldn't the games master approve the players possessions selection? The possession tables would seem to create a magic rich game, with even a skilled farmer being able to spend two background choices and being able to buy a dead crystal or small iron shield. Any item listed in the starting possessions section should have a listing in the Economics chapter. Whew, that's all for now, more comments will be coming along shortly. Mark S.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA21794; Mon, 24 Jan 94 18:07:25 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01570; Mon, 24 Jan 94 19:07:12 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 24 Jan 94 19:07:18 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 24 Jan 94 19:06:44 EST From: Henk.Langeveld@Holland.Sun.COM (Henk Langeveld - Sun Nederland) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Loren's comments on RQ:AiG, II of II Date: Tue, 25 Jan 94 01:07:19 +0100 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <109A65244EC@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> In rq-playtest you write: > What we wanted to do was have separate names for shaman-learned spells >and priest-learned spells, even if they have the same mechanics. I >gather "battle magic" isn't acceptable. We can't use "spirit magic" for >both, though, for reasons I've already mentioned. Suggestions? If the same type of magic is considered to be of a different nature by characters, then Priest-learned "spirit" magic will be as divine as standard Divine magic. The only difference is that it is less powerful. Now, what we are looking for is a name that is both acceptable "in character" and for mechanics. Some suggestions: "Simple divine magic", or "Simple Magic" for short "Cult magic" Or use the concept of "divine gifts" as phrased earlier. I don't really like "battle magic" either. -- 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA26685; Mon, 24 Jan 94 19:36:25 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA06034; Mon, 24 Jan 94 20:36:10 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 24 Jan 94 20:36:19 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 24 Jan 94 20:35:55 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RAG First Impressions Part One Date: Mon, 24 Jan 1994 17:35:42 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: <10B22E67C48@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >Shouldn't the games >master approve the players possessions selection? The >possession tables would seem to create a magic rich game, with >even a skilled farmer being able to spend two background choices >and being able to buy a dead crystal or small iron shield. I think of this as family heirlooms. Or you could think of it as the sort of stuff that most adventurers would get in the year or so of adventuring that it takes to increase from trained to skilled. >Any item listed in the starting possessions section should >have a listing in the Economics chapter. Not necessarily -- the Economics chapter assumes standard markets. Heirloom magic simply wouldn't be for sale. And few people sell their crystals (you can never have enough stored MP). 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA29157; Mon, 24 Jan 94 20:14:25 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA07807; Mon, 24 Jan 94 21:14:10 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 24 Jan 94 21:14:15 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 24 Jan 94 21:14:02 EST From: Carl Fink To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Loren's comments on RQ:AiG, II of II Date: Mon, 24 Jan 1994 21:13:45 -0500 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <10BC5964DEC@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Loren Miller writes: [I write] >> >> Does the word "bookkeeping" strike fear into your heart? It should. >> This was my original suggestion, folks, and we tried it. The >> bookkeeping involved in keeping track of sorcerors just became unwieldy. M>Can you shed a little light on this? What kind of book-keeping dod you >find to be necessary with the no-regeneration-until-expiration rule? >Would an extra table for sorcery types with extended spells on it >help? You practically need an extra sheet to keep track of sorcery >spells anyway. Okay, I cast a Damage Resistance 10 on a friend, using power from a bound spirit. That spirit can't regenerate 10 magic points until the spell wears off in 13 days. Now I cast a Damage Boosting 5 on my dagger using power from the same spirit. It can't regenerate five more of its magic points for 19 days. Now.... Maybe that doesn't bother you, Loren, but it isn't the sort of thing most people seem to enjoy.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA29169; Mon, 24 Jan 94 20:14:36 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA07809; Mon, 24 Jan 94 21:14:17 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 24 Jan 94 21:14:21 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 24 Jan 94 21:14:03 EST From: Carl Fink To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Loren's comments on RQ:AiG, II of II Date: Mon, 24 Jan 1994 21:13:55 -0500 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <10BC5A64188@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Henk Langeveld writes: H> "Simple divine magic", or > "Simple Magic" for short > "Cult magic" We do call it "Cult Magic" if learned from the religion -- what we need is a generic name for both "cult magic" and "spirit magic" (learned from shamans).  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA29173; Mon, 24 Jan 94 20:14:39 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA07813; Mon, 24 Jan 94 21:14:24 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 24 Jan 94 21:14:27 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 24 Jan 94 21:14:04 EST From: Carl Fink To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: skill versus skill Date: Mon, 24 Jan 1994 21:13:56 -0500 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <10BC5B75ADE@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Loren Miller writes: M>Actually I had already assumed that a crit beat a special beat a >success beat a fail beat a fumble, and within those levels of success >the lowest roll won. However, that wasn't in the rule as I rewrote it, >and it also wasn't in the draft. M>So, Carl &c, what do you think? Actually, I had assumed that too. (I didn't write that section, obviously). I'll bring it up with Mike and Oliver.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA29176; Mon, 24 Jan 94 20:14:42 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA07816; Mon, 24 Jan 94 21:14:30 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 24 Jan 94 21:14:34 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 24 Jan 94 21:14:05 EST From: Carl Fink To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: skill versus skill Date: Mon, 24 Jan 1994 21:13:57 -0500 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <10BC5C74F63@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Paul of no surname writes: P> We use a Pendragon-like rule where high roll in a category (Crit, Special, >etc.) wins. Works very well, in my opinion. Low roll just doesn't work >right - if the guy with a 10% skill succeeds at all, he is likely to beat >a Master with a 100% skill. P> - Paul I like the Pendragon system, but we want to stay consistent with RuneQuest's "low roll is good" philosophy.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA29189; Mon, 24 Jan 94 20:14:52 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA07819; Mon, 24 Jan 94 21:14:36 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 24 Jan 94 21:14:40 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 24 Jan 94 21:14:26 EST From: Carl Fink To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Melee/Missle hit location Date: Mon, 24 Jan 1994 21:13:59 -0500 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <10BC7474D73@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Scott Ferrier writes: >...Perhaps we can put it in the old "Optional >Rules" appendix with the table for most of the common creatures with a >couple of lines to explain the hows and whys to people so they can >apply it to the more unusual creatures. Okay. (We had already discussed doing this.)  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA29562; Mon, 24 Jan 94 20:23:39 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA08311; Mon, 24 Jan 94 21:23:25 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 24 Jan 94 21:23:32 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 24 Jan 94 21:23:14 EST From: gharris@Jade.Tufts.EDU To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: skill versus skill Date: Mon, 24 Jan 94 21:17:51 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: <10BECCE45F5@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> I think staying consistent with the "low roll is good" philosophy is an admirable goal, but I think sticking to it when a slight variation gives a vastly simpler and superior solution is not good game design. Using the "low roll is good philosophy" gives you a situation where you either have at least one more roll, with some calculation involved in what is needed in that roll, or a situation where if a character with a low skill and a character with a high skill have the same level of success, then the character with the low skill will almost always prevail. In contrast, using the Pendragon system you don't need to make any other calculations or rolls, and the character with the higher skill is at a proportional advantage. I think that is much too high a price to pay for orthodoxy. ~r.sig  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA29792; Mon, 24 Jan 94 20:31:26 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA08651; Mon, 24 Jan 94 21:31:15 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 24 Jan 94 21:31:20 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 24 Jan 94 21:31:09 EST From: gharris@Jade.Tufts.EDU To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Loren's comments on RQ:AiG, II of II Date: Mon, 24 Jan 94 21:25:44 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: <10C0EA3543A@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> I would like to put in my opinion here that, with the skill/10% limits on using manipulation skills, the old exponential tables for range and duration are *not* abusive. As has been pointed out, you need to have at least 95% in both the skill and spell to get spells that last a week, and those levels are only going to be reached by powerful magi, and those people *should* be powerful (after all, training/researching a Hard skill up to 95% takes a helluva lot of time and a helluva lot of money). Moreover, I've never been convinced that the exponential range table was abusive even in the plain unmodified RQ3 system, since spell range was limited by line of sight anyway, and the only way it could be abusive was with project , and that was limited to a move of 1m/SR, deprived the mage of a sense in his current location, and rendered him vulnerable to magical attacks. Now, to get a range of a kilometer would require 55% in range, and anything beyond that is going to be moot because of line-of-sight. I say, go back to the old tables, and rely on the skill/10% limitation on manipulation to keep sorcerors in check. It's more than enough. -- George W. Harris gharris@jade.tufts.edu Dept. of Mathematics Tufts University Days, I remember cities. Nights, I dream about a perfect place. Days, I dive by the wreck. Nights, I swim in the blue lagoon.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA17290; Tue, 25 Jan 94 14:31:32 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01504; Tue, 25 Jan 94 15:31:12 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 25 Jan 94 15:31:25 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 25 Jan 94 15:30:38 EST From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RQ:AiG Character Creation Date: Mon, 24 Jan 94 19:49:39 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: <11E0CE50875@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> I'm very sorry to hear that the multiple profession ability went away; that was one of the better features of the RQ4 draft. Frankly, I never saw it as that complex; if you didn't want to fool with it, you just took one profession and used your points to buy more option skills, magic, or what all. ------------------------------ 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 AA22278; Mon, 24 Jan 94 23:00:19 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA15539; Mon, 24 Jan 94 23:59:34 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 25 Jan 94 0:00:11 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 24 Jan 94 23:59:20 EST From: jjm@zycor.lgc.com (johnjmedway) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: skill versus skill Date: Mon, 24 Jan 94 22:57:07 CST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <10E86F62951@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >> From: Carl Fink >> Subject: Re: skill versus skill >> Date: Mon, 24 Jan 1994 21:13:57 -0500 >> >> I like the Pendragon system, but we want to stay consistent with >> RuneQuest's "low roll is good" philosophy. Best way to handle that might be use the difference between the required roll ( i.e. skill % ) and the actual roll. So if some Master ( say, 100% skill ) rolls a 25%, and so does some lesser competitor ( skill @ 30% ), though they both got a success result, the Master clearly won, as he bettered his roll by 75%, whereas the the other goon only made it by 5%. This keeps "low roll is good", and avoids the resistance table gunk. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | john_medway@zycor.lgc.com | Landmark Graphics Corp | 512.292.2325 | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA24340; Mon, 24 Jan 94 23:41:43 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA17239; Tue, 25 Jan 94 00:41:28 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 25 Jan 94 0:41:35 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 25 Jan 94 0:41:13 EST From: Mark S. c/o Tom Yates To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: R:AG preliminary comments part 2 Date: Tue, 25 Jan 94 00:42:05 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: <10F39BB10A0@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Mark's First Impressions Part Two The "farm" starting possession is described as requiring 5 days of work a week during Water, Earth, and Fire Seasons. This does not jibe with the fact that Fire Season is the time of military campaigns. In your own words it is "the time of war when men are free from the toils of the soil." Perhaps the requirements could be changed to 5 days of work a week during Water and Earth Seasons, plus forty more days of work at some point during the year. Skills The more detailed success rules (botch, above average success, ect)(page 53) do not seem to be worth the extra effort of figuring. Especially as simplifying the system is a design goal. I can't picture scenario designers specifying eight separate results for each skill roll, and I feel that it is inappropriate to expect GMs to do such work on the fly. The example of new skill creation on page 54 should be probably be changed from Swordancing to, say, Axedancing. A sworddance is a dance performed in the real world, and it generally does not involve attacking people. I would assume that a "real" sworddancer would simply have, in RuneQuest terms, a high dance skill, and would not have any exceptional combat capabilities. The magical skill listing (page 64-65) does not include all of the new sorcerous manipulations. I really like the listing of speeds for swimming and climbing. Time and Learning I am glad you kept both skill check, and end of adventure experience systems. I wish you would change the phrase "end of adventure". Some of us run ongoing campaigns which do not always break down into discrete "adventures" I have mixed feelings about the socializing rules. My heart tells me that a rules oriented approach to social matters risks draining the life out of role-playing. My mind, on the other hand, tells me that incorporating such concerns in the rules will raise the average level of roleplaying. I'll have to reserve comment until I see how it plays. I like the new skill training category "Practice". Combat With the possible exception of All Out Attacks, I really dislike gamemasters having to declare statements of intent for NPCs. It is bad enough that players know what each other are doing, knowing what all the NPCs are doing really seems like a crock. The new dodge rule is an improvement. The new action rules cut back severely on the amount of missile fire in combat. Could you at least bring back quickdraw? The new critical rules are a welcome moderation of the RQIV draft. The Standard Fumble is a nice addition to the game. I, however, will continue to grope for the fumble table while chortling gleefully. There are far too few weapons on the weapons tables!!! The following are the minimum additions: Longbow (for the Rathori), Dwarven Repeater ('nuff said), Bola (for the Bola Lizard Riders), Dart (for decadent Lunar scum), Halberd and Whip ('cause they're cool). The new spirit combat rules are less interesting than the earlier draft, but they are a lot simpler. A reasonable trade off. Am I correct interpreting the rules as allowing a spirit combat defense action to a character under the effect of the Fanaticism or Berserk spell? The Grappling and Wrestling rules are complex enough that I will probably not use them, I am, however, glad that they are there for the use of gamers who are more interested in unarmed combat. I expect that there are people who won't use rules that I like. If we can't have the quickdraw skill, could we at least have the prepared fire special option? It might be useful to extend the knockback table (page 90) to Dex times zero. The fighting while kneeling rules are keen! The Natural World The new falling rules are really keen! Economics There should be rules on starting up a business. I'll send you some rules proposals shortly. Almost all of the items listed in the starting possessions tables should be listed in the price table. It does not seem right that the whole Lunar Empire is given the same discount on Praxian goods as Pavis. Pavis is IN the middle of the richest part of Prax. The Lunar Empire does not share this relation to the Hungry Plateau, and I don't think that the same discount should apply. If the Lunars lacked cheap access to certain Praxian goods, then their invasion of Prax was all the more profitable. In any event I would assume that the sable tribe on the Hungry Plateau would have eaten all their Bison, High Llamas, etc.. in the First Age. The World of Magic The limits on enchantment conditions (page 114) need to be more fully described. For example, can one create a target condition that excludes non-Illuminates? That excludes pieces of paper that have correct solutions to equations written on them? Can a trigger condition be as complex as a computer program? Mark S.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA25730; Mon, 24 Jan 94 23:46:19 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA17426; Tue, 25 Jan 94 00:46:03 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 25 Jan 94 0:46:10 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 25 Jan 94 0:45:44 EST From: Robert Smith To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: skill versus skill Date: Mon, 24 Jan 1994 23:45:03 -0600 (CST) 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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <10F4CE854C4@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> I just sent the same thing, basically. I didn't do the calculation, but I did note that this also works if both roll specials or crits. I also cited the stuff they said on p. 53 Rob  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA27728; Tue, 25 Jan 94 00:03:50 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA18057; Tue, 25 Jan 94 01:03:30 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 25 Jan 94 1:03:41 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 25 Jan 94 1:03:22 EST From: Robert Smith To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: RQAiG Initial Reactions Date: Tue, 25 Jan 1994 00:03:02 -0600 (CST) 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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <10F983F2604@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Well, I haven't had achance to get through the whole thing, but I see that there are many things I like already. INTRO I don't generally play in Glorantha, so I think the intro is fine. A lot of information is needed at the outset to set the stage for later events, like creating a character. However, the list of abbreviations ABB needs to be moved to the front of the "Creating a Character" chapter. We go through the whole process, but don't get ABB until we are done. Does mass need an ABB (it's only one letter and making them all caps takes up nearly as must space)? CREATING ADVENTURER I like the character creation system better than the earlier version, but just barely. It does allow variable characters without the "I'll be a warrior for two years, then administrator for one, then..." It took us an average of three hours per character to generate with the old system. But I still don't see what advantage this has over a Cthulhu-like system, which has professions, but allows more flexibility and is much faster. Your editor needs to check noun and pronoun agreement. Page 24. "An adventurer can also use their..." p. 24 "Limiting one's Renown to a single species... allows one to increase their Renown..." RENOWN By the way, I really like the concept of Renown. It is something we have used in various campaigns. As others have mentioned, guidelines (notice I don't say rules) need to be included for increase, change from positive to negative (yeah, he was a wonderful Rune Lord who did great things for the village, but then he unexplicibly slaughtered a passing caravan...). Also what the negative effects of Renown might be ("I'd know that scimitar anywhere! That's the bastard that killed Fritz! Get 'im!). SKILL V SKILL OK, into the skill v skill fray. On p. 53, the rules say, "In general, a skill roll that was just made (I assume meaning barely, not recently) should barely succeed, and a skill roll that was just missed should barely fail. At the gamemaster's option, a skill roll that rolls 1/2 the skill or less (but is not a special) could have a slightly enhanced effect." If this is the view of how skills work, then make it part of the system. If both characters achieve an equal success, then determine who did better by subtracting the roll from the skill; the highest result is the winner. This works for all levels of success, from crit to normal, and keeps with the low roll is good. There, wasn't that simple? (Sorry, it seems obvious to me but that's how we've played for years.) SKILLS I like the lores, and contrary to Loren do feel that there is a difference between Plant Lore and Craft . In my experience (and most of my family is rural) knowing how, when, etc. to plant crops, raise chickens, milk cows, does not mean you know their taxonomy, internal structures, genetics, etc. You can do a lot of stuff successfully as a result of rote learning, which is what craft implies to me, while lore implies a deeper understanding of causes, interactions, theory, but little practical experience. How many plant geneticists could successfully run a farm? A few maybe, but not many. A comment on language skills. American games tend to be particularly weak on language skills, since we tend not to learn languages. Our experience often extends to HS spanish. But I am pleasantly surprised by the Speak and R/W rules. I love the similar, related, and distant languages. I have a suggestion on R/W, however. Time should be a consideration of the skill level as well. It takes longer to read something if you are trying to remember roots of various words and then puzzle out the prefixes and suffixes. I can read English about 5 times faster than Polish and Polish about 5 times faster than Russian (I've forgotten too much, it has nothing to do with script). In addition, the use of dictionaries, could be considered: maybe it doubles one's skill while also doubling the reading time. p. 71, column 2, para 2, last sentence: "...with a poor teacher (Instruct skill of 50% or below) should only as practice..."? COMBAT I have high hopes for the combat system. It mostly seems logical. We'll have to give tham a try soon. Perhaps define "adjacent". Should Long Weapons section be moved to Special Rules for Combat and be placed closer to the section on Closing. When I read the section I immediately wondered what happened if a figure moved inside that range. Buried in the section on Dodging Missiles is a sentence on the effects of shooting at point blank range. This needs its own section. It should not be buried so. Indeed, I think missile weapons get short shrift in general. Why not make a section on missile weapons and place all the pertinent special rules there: point blank range, shooting while riding, max range, wind effects, targets behind cover (nowhere addressed that I saw, but maybe it's in there somewhere)? I like the special combat tactics generally. It will be interesting to see whether players think they are cost effective. Probably yes, but only for those with high weapons skills, as it should be. I do have a problem with the Steady skill. If I understand these skills correctly, it only comes into effect when the attack roll is a special for both the special tactic and the weapon. Now, the Steady skill can negate the effect of max. range (which is to halve the chance to hit, right?) Thus, if you have a 100 bow skill, your chance to hit at max range is 50%, special on a 10 and crit on a 3. Since the only max range effect I am aware of is halving the chance to hit, the only thing this skill can possibly do is, after you have already achieved a special, make it into a critical, and then only occasionally (in the example above you would have had to roll a 4 or 5 to get any benefit from the steady skill). WHAT DOES THIS REPRESENT? It can't be aiming, since that would help you attain a normal hit as well and should have effects at all ranges. Any ideas what's going on? Or am I just dense (which is indeed a possibility)? MOUNTED COMBAT No disadvantages for lacking saddles or stirrups? Especially a saddle for a lance charge. In the first para in this section, it might be better to say fight or shoot FROM a horse, rather than OFF a horse. NATURAL WORLD Generally I like things. Concerning fatigue, in genral it looks like a reasonable compromise. Although I wonder about an average character carrying 55kg (120#) 2.5 k over intractable terrain and only being winded. I like the rules concerning wearing armor. But why is no one else bothered by the fact that you can pile tons o' armor on your legs and then hop skip and jump, but put on a helmet and your exhausted? I suggest the following: Leg armor has the same effect as wearing a helmet, but only when walking, not riding. In addition, leg armor heavier than leather reduces movement by one. (That's not too much is it Carl? Simple. Short.) FALLING One should note that armor (especially plate on the limbs) can compound falling damage, as the extra weight forces the body to bend in unapproved ways. Thus, a person in heavy armor is more likely to suffer at least sprains, possibly broken limbs, and even a broken neck. That's all so far. Hope it's enough for a cursory glance. Rob Smith resmith@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA29174; Tue, 25 Jan 94 00:22:00 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA18878; Tue, 25 Jan 94 01:21:47 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 25 Jan 94 1:21:53 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 25 Jan 94 1:21:41 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Sorcery Date: Mon, 24 Jan 1994 22:21:24 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: <10FE6652EEF@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >I say, go back to the old tables, >and rely on the skill/10% limitation on manipulation to keep sorcerors >in check. It's more than enough. This sounds reasonable to me. BTW, anyone else notice that only shamans get Strengthening Enchantment now?  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA06330; Tue, 25 Jan 94 03:21:12 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA22481; Tue, 25 Jan 94 04:20:42 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 25 Jan 94 4:21:09 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 25 Jan 94 4:20:36 EST From: Peter Maranci To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: RQ:Glorantha Character sheets Date: Tue, 25 Jan 1994 02:42:50 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <112E1A702C5@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> First, thanks for sending me your character sheet, David -- and so quickly! I'm impressed. About the "linear tracking method" that I mentioned before -- it's the style that I used to record current and maximum hit points on my own character sheet. I printed a copy in The Wild Hunt about a year and a half ago, but here's the essential part again. This is just the hit point recording area. The hit locations have not yet been updated for RQ4. Total Hit Points____________________________ 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Melee/Missile_ Loc. Armor_Type __AP_(ENC) (01-04/01-03)Rt. Leg ______________(__)(___) 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1-00+1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (05-08/04-06)Lt. Leg ______________(__)(___) 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1-00+1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (09-11/07-10)Abdomen ______________(__)(___) 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1-00+1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ( 12 /11-15)Chest ______________(__)(___) 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1-00+1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (13-15/16-17)Rt. Arm ______________(__)(___) 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1-00+1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (16-18/18-19)Lt. Arm ______________(__)(___) 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1-00+1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (19-20/ 20 )Head ______________(__)(___) 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1-00+1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 The status of each hit location is recorded on the number line beneath the location/number/armor/ENC line. The normal hit points for the limb are circled on the right side (the positive numbers). As wounds are taken the player checks off or underlines the new lower numbers. Past (that is, to the left of) zero the number indicate negative hit points. I favor this method for several reasons. For one thing, it means that the areas to be erased are spread out more -- rather than erasing the same spot on the page for each location, the entire number row is erasing area (if that makes sense). More erasure is required to erase a written number than a simple underline or hatch mark. More erasure = shorter sheet life. In combat you needn't erase the old underlined mark until healing takes place -- it's obvious that the underline furthest to the left represents the current (worst) state of the location. Also this method allows convenient recording of maximum hit points in each location. It may also be easier to read. Rather than read the numbers, the mere location of the underline on the number line gives a quick visual indication of the status of the location. Much like a graph. Of course I didn't create that method. I'm pretty sure it was the RQ2 character sheet Mk. 4a in Runemasters that first used the number line. I hope I've described this properly. -->Pete ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Maranci Malden, Massachusetts pete@slough.mit.edu or rune@trystero.com or rune@ace.com "Hey! Your Tien fell in my Atyar!" "Well, your Atyar got in my Tien!" Thanatar -- two great Chaos Gods that go great together!  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA08032; Tue, 25 Jan 94 04:24:17 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA23318; Tue, 25 Jan 94 05:24:08 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 25 Jan 94 5:24:14 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 25 Jan 94 5:23:57 EST From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RAG First Impressions Part One Date: Tue, 25 Jan 94 00:33:05 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: <113F0055979@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David Dunham writes: > > Not necessarily -- the Economics chapter assumes standard markets. Heirloom > magic simply wouldn't be for sale. And few people sell their crystals (you > can never have enough stored MP). > Doesn't necessarily follow, David...I could see battlefield scavengers who aquire a certain number of them but just don't use enough magic to justify keeping many. It would be nice to get ballpark figures for what such things typically go for when they ARE available. After all, even standard markets may not have all goods, so I don't think that's altogether an 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA08020; Tue, 25 Jan 94 04:23:26 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA23314; Tue, 25 Jan 94 05:23:16 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 25 Jan 94 5:23:22 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 25 Jan 94 5:23:06 EST From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Loren's comments on RQ:AiG, II of II Date: Tue, 25 Jan 94 00:46:09 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: <113EC6B7958@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> As far as using the old range/duration goes, I'd agree that it isn't very abusive under the 10% increment limits, as long as the foci don't increase that (I'm assuming the spell foci in the sorcery draft still exist; if not, ignore this). Otherwise it might be too easy to crank this up rather early. Oh, one other thing; in a game with a Farsee spell, perhaps it's overly blyth to assume line of sight cuts off at a kilometer. ------------------------------ 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 AA06461; Tue, 25 Jan 94 03:30:47 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA22646; Tue, 25 Jan 94 04:30:33 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 25 Jan 94 4:30:44 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 25 Jan 94 4:30:20 EST From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RuneQuest: Adventures in Glorantha Date: Tue, 25 Jan 1994 01:29:44 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: <1130B3C5D46@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Wayne, >Frankly, it strikes me as a bad defense of reducing distintion to use the >value people place on attributes. If you use the distributed option, no >one whines about other people's attributes either; while I'm not claiming >that RQ4 does this, I don't think a situation where a wider range of >attributes produces the same result is a Good Thing; ideally, even one >point of difference should MAKE a difference, or why even have the >distinction? I can point you at something which encourages point by point appreciation of Basic Roleplaying attributes, the game Stormbringer. Exceptional stats are those with a value greater than 12 and less than 9. Point by point over, or under, these stats modify the skill bonus for the relevent skill groups. Hence most stats in Stormbringer have an effect in games terms, with even one point making a difference. However when aggregating Strength and Size to give a bonus for damage unless a widely varying set of values is used this point by point system cannot be used. The defence given earlier to defend distribution was that they felt the current situation was too heroic. The values were judged to vary too widely. This suit me fine as I am very sympathetic with the concept that those who live the sword should be fairly prone to die by it too. My point is that for attributes to remain expressive, the rewards for blistering high attributes should not over shadow the lot of lesser characters. People should look at their attributes and see a description of their character rather than just pine for optimal scores that would play a significant role in their characters survival. Regards -- Guy Robinson --  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA11683; Tue, 25 Jan 94 13:24:53 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA26016; Tue, 25 Jan 94 14:24:31 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 25 Jan 94 14:24:44 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 25 Jan 94 14:24:11 EST From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RQ4 Battle Magic? Date: Tue, 25 Jan 1994 10:30:40 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: <11CF1574FFA@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > > >Right now there are 3 names: > > >Battle magic (RQ3's spirit magic) > > >Cult magic (Battle magic available from a cult) > > >Spirit magic (Battle magic available from a shaman/spell spirit) > (also suggested: Common Magic). > Well, I actually like running with Spirit Magic given Paul(?)'s mods to make it > more "spirit-like". If SM is run in that style (viz, thinking of each spell as > the user talking to "helper spirits") then Spirit Magic is a very good name > indeed. So would I if the rules were such. However, nothing seems to indicate this. Just getting the magic by beating up spirits doesn't fully qualify for the name, IMO. > Ordering my dispreferences, the one I dislike most is Common Magic; the name is > bland and generic-fantasy-like. If this were Midkemia, I'd have suggested the Lesser Path of Magic, or Natural(ist) Magic. Lesser (spirit, battle...) and Higher Magic (for divine or wizards' magic) are generic in the utmost, but: The people who use it will think of it as generic, i.e. the closest thing they know. > Battle Magic comes a close second as a name > which was widely despised (for its lack of flavour) in the RQ1/2 gaming circles > I once moved in. Rather give me Folk Magic, like in Sandy Petersen's TotRM 6 article. > How about "Low Magic" (contrasted with the "High Magic" of priests and > sorcerors, not to mention the superior abilities of shamans)? Talking about generic... > Or "Power Magic" (it is based on POW, right - chance of casting being POW*5%?). > Or (along the same lines) "Raw Magic". Rather Soul Magic. POW measures the strength of the sou, right? > Actually, what is really all that wrong with calling it "Spirit Magic" and > just noting that the theological term for it is "Cult Magic". (Actually, > IMNSHO better names for the cult versions would be "Blessings" for Spirit Magic > and "Miracles" for Divine Magic). E.g. that I doubt a Dara Happan Solar cultist will know whose will he was wrestling to gain the spell. Wasn't this just a test imposed on you directly by your deity to see whether you're worthy? Unless there are spirits involved in the casting, I don't see the reason for calling it Spirit Magic. (A sorcerer using a POW spirit's MP might think of that as spirit magic, too...) -- Joerg Baumgartner rq4@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA11756; Tue, 25 Jan 94 13:25:25 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA26084; Tue, 25 Jan 94 14:25:08 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 25 Jan 94 14:25:15 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 25 Jan 94 14:24:44 EST From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Melee/Missle hit location Date: Tue, 25 Jan 1994 10:39:18 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: <11CF3BD6AEF@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Carl Fink: > Scott Ferrier writes: >>...Perhaps we can put it in the old "Optional >>Rules" appendix with the table for most of the common creatures with a >>couple of lines to explain the hows and whys to people so they can >>apply it to the more unusual creatures. > Okay. (We had already discussed doing this.) Then also include a sentence on why fisticuffs tend to end up with less leg hits than sword fights. -- Joerg Baumgartner rq4@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA11746; Tue, 25 Jan 94 13:25:19 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA26059; Tue, 25 Jan 94 14:24:57 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 25 Jan 94 14:25:06 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 25 Jan 94 14:24:33 EST From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Low roll is good Date: Tue, 25 Jan 1994 10:44:38 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: <11CF2F0255D@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> In <10BECCE45F5@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu>, you write: > I think staying consistent with the "low roll is good" philosophy is > an admirable goal, but I think sticking to it when a slight variation > gives a vastly simpler and superior solution is not good game design. > Using the "low roll is good philosophy" gives you a situation where you > either have at least one more roll, with some calculation involved in > what is needed in that roll, or a situation where if a character with a > low skill and a character with a high skill have the same level of success, > then the character with the low skill will almost always prevail. In > contrast, using the Pendragon system you don't need to make any other > calculations or rolls, and the character with the higher skill is at a > proportional advantage. I think that is much too high a price to pay > for orthodoxy. I might be what people call a lightning calculator, but the same effect as in high roll is good Pendragon style (which I never got used to, and actively dislike)can be achieved by "how good below". Of course, one has to decide between linear (20 below skill) and partial (below 1/2 skill). I'd really like to have a easy-to-use system which allows "barely hit/missed" results which have some diminished effect. "No message is all black or all white." (Praxian Saying) -- Joerg Baumgartner rq4@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA11769; Tue, 25 Jan 94 13:25:38 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA26094; Tue, 25 Jan 94 14:25:17 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 25 Jan 94 14:25:26 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 25 Jan 94 14:25:15 EST From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Loren's comments on RQ:AiG, II of II Date: Tue, 25 Jan 1994 10:51:38 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: <11CF5F35622@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> George Harris: > I would like to put in my opinion here that, with the skill/10% > limits on using manipulation skills, the old exponential tables for > range and duration are *not* abusive. As has been pointed out, you need > to have at least 95% in both the skill and spell to get spells that last > a week, and those levels are only going to be reached by powerful magi, > and those people *should* be powerful (after all, training/researching > a Hard skill up to 95% takes a helluva lot of time and a helluva lot of > money). The only problem with the purely exponential table is that it leads to irrelevant bookkeeping. Why does Duration 3 last 80 minutes? Why not 1 hour, or 2? Why does Duration 7 last 21 hours, and not simply 1 day? I proposed an alterated (maybe too wizard-friendly) table on Saturday. On the same subject: Are there matrix enchantments containing Duration manipulation? How do these work (i.e. do they allow higher manipulation, like before?) How does Multispell work now? -- Joerg Baumgartner rq4@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA07962; Tue, 25 Jan 94 04:17:38 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA23196; Tue, 25 Jan 94 05:17:27 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 25 Jan 94 5:17:34 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 25 Jan 94 5:17:20 EST From: Malcolm Cohen To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: RQ: Attributes (was RuneQuest: Adventures in Glorantha) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 94 10:16:07 WET Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <113D3B83074@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Guy, > Wayne, > >[...] I don't think a situation where a wider range of > >attributes produces the same result is a Good Thing; ideally, even one > >point of difference should MAKE a difference, or why even have the > >distinction? > [Stormbringer flattens out 9-12 w.r.t. skill bonuses] So did RQ1-2, so what. RQ3 is better, since Attribute 9 is different to Attribute 12 (they certainly *sound* different enough to make a difference). > However when aggregating Strength and Size to give a bonus for damage > unless a widely varying set of values is used this point by point > system cannot be used. Right, so you cannot use 0/+d4/+d6 because the jumps are too big. Good argument for revising the RQ1/2/3 damage mod to give more sensible jumps, as in RQ4. > My point is that for attributes to remain expressive, the rewards > for blistering high attributes should not over shadow the lot of lesser > characters. I do not agree at all. Astoundingly high/low attributes should have corresponding effects. If you think that STR18 characters should not overshadow STR9 characters in the realm of strength you should watch the "World's Strongest Man" contest sometime - it really *DOES* make a *HUGE* difference. > People should look at their attributes and see a description of their > character rather than just pine for optimal scores that would play a > significant role in their characters survival. Take CON: low to high results in a *three times* difference in character survivability (in combat). So why this nostalgia for the bad old "9-12 is no effect" on skill bonuses? Not everyone is painted grey - in the real world minimum and maximum attribute values do have large effects. And as far as pining for optimal scores goes, sure people like to be good at *something*. But unless they end up with pitiful STR resulting in a negative damage bonus the character is unlikely to be completely unplayable. (RQ3 was a major step forward in making SIZ 2d6+6 in removing such unplayable - negative damage bonus or less than 9 HP - characters from being a common occurrence). -- ...........................Malcolm Cohen, NAG Ltd., Oxford, U.K. (malcolm@nag.co.uk)  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA10868; Tue, 25 Jan 94 05:47:39 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA24359; Tue, 25 Jan 94 06:47:17 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 25 Jan 94 6:47:34 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 25 Jan 94 6:47:11 EST From: Henk.Langeveld@Holland.Sun.COM (Henk Langeveld - Sun Nederland) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: skill versus skill Date: Tue, 25 Jan 94 12:47:55 +0100 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1155337260B@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> jjm@zycor.lgc.com (johnjmedway): >Best way to handle that might be use the difference between the required >roll ( i.e. skill % ) and the actual roll. >So if some Master ( say, 100% skill ) rolls a 25%, and so does some >lesser competitor ( skill @ 30% ), though they both got a success result, >the Master clearly won, as he bettered his roll by 75%, whereas the the >other goon only made it by 5%. >This keeps "low roll is good", and avoids the resistance table gunk. And you can avoid the arithmatic by using "low roll wins, skill breaks tie" which is functionally equivalent. -- 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA15649; Tue, 25 Jan 94 08:00:27 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01920; Tue, 25 Jan 94 09:00:09 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 25 Jan 94 9:00:19 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 25 Jan 94 9:00:03 EST From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RuneQuest: Adventures in Glorantha Date: Tue, 25 Jan 94 04:11:57 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: <1178A2A41B3@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com writes: > My point is that for attributes to remain expressive, the rewards > for blistering high attributes should not over shadow the lot of lesser > characters. > Okay, I can agree with that; it simply sounded like "Gee, people like to have higher attributes because they do something for you; it's good that in the new draft they don't make as much difference so people won't want them as much." This rather seemed to defeat the purpose in having attributes at all. ------------------------------ 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 AA19946; Tue, 25 Jan 94 09:11:18 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA06529; Tue, 25 Jan 94 10:10:55 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 25 Jan 94 10:11:12 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 25 Jan 94 10:10:47 EST From: burt@ptltd.com (Burton Choinski) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Loren's comments on RQ:AiG, II of II Date: Tue, 25 Jan 94 10:10:36 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: <118B8072750@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> How about "Soul Magic" (Spirit), "God Magic" (Divine) and "World Magic" (Sorcery). :) -- Burton  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA21936; Tue, 25 Jan 94 09:40:47 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA08793; Tue, 25 Jan 94 10:40:21 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 25 Jan 94 10:40:36 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 25 Jan 94 10:40:14 EST From: "Loren J. Miller" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: skill vs. skill Date: 25 Jan 1994 10:37:10 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <11935AF7F97@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Newton Hughes > Well, my point was that when both sides scored the same level of > success the defensive skill took precedence. I don't like using the > lowest/highest roll to decide a winner, because it isn't compatible > with the way dodging is done and doesn't give the defender enough of > an advantage. Both hide vs scan and listen vs sneak are covered in the rules for those skills. The "skill vs skill" rules would be for more generic contests, such as a contest to see who can climb a wall faster or who can eat the most sausages. In such contests there is no attacker- defender dichotomy, and there are no ties---you have a clear winner. 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA24488; Tue, 25 Jan 94 10:09:27 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA10966; Tue, 25 Jan 94 11:09:05 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 25 Jan 94 11:09:20 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 25 Jan 94 11:08:47 EST From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RQ: Attributes (was RuneQuest: Adventures in Glorantha) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 1994 08:05:59 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: <119AF7A6F3E@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Malcolm Cohen writes: [I describe a system that fails to differentiate only between 9-12] >So did RQ1-2, so what. RQ3 is better, since Attribute 9 is different to >Attribute 12 (they certainly *sound* different enough to make a difference). I have not extensively studied RQ3 but I have examined the probability bell curve for 3 six-sided dice. Scores within the range of 9-12 are very common. Remember that this is only for determining skill bonuses. >> However when aggregating Strength and Size to give a bonus for damage >> unless a widely varying set of values is used this point by point >> system cannot be used. >Right, so you cannot use 0/+d4/+d6 because the jumps are too big. Good >argument for revising the RQ1/2/3 damage mod to give more sensible jumps, as in >RQ4. This is exactly what I was advocating. >> My point is that for attributes to remain expressive, the rewards >> for blistering high attributes should not over shadow the lot of lesser >> characters. >I do not agree at all. Astoundingly high/low attributes should have >corresponding effects. If you think that STR18 characters should not >overshadow STR9 characters in the realm of strength you should watch the >"World's Strongest Man" contest sometime - it really *DOES* make a *HUGE* >difference. I have watched many editions of the World`s Strongest Man. As you appear to be familiar with this programme I will use it as a basis to explain my point of view. In RuneQuest terms those people are probably not STR18. In RQ2 species maximium is for attribute for which 3d6 is used is 21 (18 + 3 for the number of dice used). Those guys would probably be closer to 19 to 21 in their Strength attributes. In the last World Strongest Man competition some of those compeditors where seriously muscle-bound, a condition that can reduce one`s agility considerably. Some of those guys where strong but how would they fair against a trained boxer or fencer, for example. Leverage which would be reflected in the Size attribute came into the competition in a number of ways. Although increased leverage was generally an advantage sometime people were just simply the most apt size and shape for the particular task. The skill of the person should be a telling factor. Who would you expect to dominate a fight between a Master Swordsman with Str 9 to triumph over someone with STR 18, using the biggest weapon he could handle but largely without training? >Take CON: low to high results in a *three times* difference in character >survivability (in combat). So why this nostalgia for the bad old "9-12 is no >effect" on skill bonuses? Constitution is used directly so it is a different issue to that of skill bonuses. Skill bonuses are about influencing a percentile roll while hit points is about the capability to survive damage dealt by weapons. I do not need to tell you that damage dealt by weapons is of a smaller order than the numbers generated on a percentile dice. The nostalagia that you perceive is not an issue. I have not read RQ:AiG although I may have a copy posted to me this week. Hence I am providing information in lieu of direct comment on RQ:AiG. I have the advantage that I possess earlier versions of role playing games which are largely unavailable within today`s market. As not every one has these resources I seek to bring issues related to them into the discussion. >Not everyone is painted grey - in the real world minimum and maximum attribute >values do have large effect. I am rather prone to prefer the subtler shades of grey to the stark contrast of black and white. Not just grey but shades of grey, providing all the better a foil for good role playing to be set against. >[..] (RQ3 was a major step forward in making SIZ 2d6+6 in removing such unplayable - negative damage bonus or less than 9 HP - characters from being a common occurrence). RQ3 was not the first source for the RQ SIZ 2d6+6 concept but I do agree that unless a player envisages a short character this idea is usefull. In summary Basic Roleplaying, the core system of Chaosium, handles attributes in various manners which include the figuring of skill bonuses, direct use of an attribute`s value and aggregations to derive damage bonuses. RQ:AiG will use one particular flavour, that I have not yet seen, so I have been quoting past flavours for the sake of reference. I had in fact seen The World's Strongest Man :-) Regards -- Guy Robinson --  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA04167; Tue, 25 Jan 94 12:04:52 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA19874; Tue, 25 Jan 94 13:03:18 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 25 Jan 94 13:04:45 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 25 Jan 94 13:03:05 EST From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: skill vs. skill Date: Tue, 25 Jan 94 13:02:57 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: <11B97381D9D@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Paul Reilly here. Reiterating: The probability distribution for straight "Low Roll Wins" is wrong. Consider the case of a clod with 2% skill vs a master with 100% skill. Then the clod wins against the Master's normal success if he rolls an 02 - the Master just can't have a normal success this low, he can only win with a special or crit. This is wrong. Using the difference between roll and skill to see who wins gives the same probability distribution as the Pendragon method, but is more difficult to do in one's head. It is VERY EASY to compare two numbers and see which is larger. People are also used to the concept of largest number (without going over the skill) wins, it is often used in non-gaming contexts. All for now.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA04943; Tue, 25 Jan 94 12:16:14 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA20810; Tue, 25 Jan 94 13:15:57 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 25 Jan 94 13:16:09 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 25 Jan 94 13:15:47 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RAG First Impressions Part One Date: Tue, 25 Jan 1994 10:15:28 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: <11BCD850680@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> At 00:33 94-01-25 -0800, Wayne Shaw wrote: >> Not necessarily -- the Economics chapter assumes standard markets. Heirloom >> magic simply wouldn't be for sale. And few people sell their crystals (you >> can never have enough stored MP). >> >Doesn't necessarily follow, David...I could see battlefield scavengers >who aquire a certain number of them but just don't use enough magic to >justify keeping many. It would be nice to get ballpark figures for what >such things typically go for when they ARE available. After all, even >standard markets may not have all goods, so I don't think that's >altogether an issue. Good example, but I think it's uncommon. I still don't think heirloom-quality stuff would be for sale often enough to clutter the price list, and if a GM does want it available, the rule of thumb (p. 24) that a 1C choice is roughly 1200L is adequate. 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA08691; Tue, 25 Jan 94 12:55:42 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA23794; Tue, 25 Jan 94 13:55:27 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 25 Jan 94 13:55:37 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 25 Jan 94 13:55:24 EST From: Robert Smith To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Rounding Date: Tue, 25 Jan 1994 12:55:08 -0600 (CST) 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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <11C76883FF2@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> On p. 47 we find the following statement... "Numbers in RuneQuest are always rounded up to the nearest whole number. Always round up from 0.5 and round down from below 0.5." Well, which is it? Do we round to the nearest whole number, or round up? And, is it always this way, or do you have some exceptions? If so, then say,"Unless otherwise specified, we always do X." Also, this statement should occur BEFORE we have to do a bunch of rounding concerning making the character! Just looking for consistency. Rob  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA10164; Tue, 25 Jan 94 13:11:51 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA24883; Tue, 25 Jan 94 14:11:35 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 25 Jan 94 14:11:44 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 25 Jan 94 14:11:26 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RQ:Glorantha Character sheets Date: Tue, 25 Jan 1994 11:11:06 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: <11CBADD2AF3@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > First, thanks for sending me your character sheet, David -- >and so quickly! I'm impressed. At the turnaround or the sheet? :-) > About the "linear tracking method" that I mentioned before -- I've always liked the little picture, since it shows at a glance where you're wounded, and gives a little graphic appeal (it's not just a chart). I don't claim it works better, but nor do I know it works worse. Most people don't have 10 HP in a location, so it seems like your table has wasted space. Anyway, you ought to be able to paste your own table there, or isn't there enough room? 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA11716; Tue, 25 Jan 94 13:25:06 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA26038; Tue, 25 Jan 94 14:24:46 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 25 Jan 94 14:24:54 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 25 Jan 94 14:24:12 EST From: gharris@Jade.Tufts.EDU To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: skill versus skill Date: Tue, 25 Jan 94 14:18:44 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: <11CF16948A8@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Um, "low roll wins, skill breaks tie" is not functionally equivalent to "he who made the roll by more wins." Consider two folks with skills of 75% and 35% in something at which they are competing (say, pottery). The first fellow rolls a 36 for a normal success, and the second rolls a 34, also for a normal success. Now, in "low roll wins, skill breaks tie," the second guy would win because 34<36, but in "he who makes the roll by the most wins," the first guy wins because 75-36 = 39 > 1 = 35-34. Big difference. -- George W. Harris gharris@jade.tufts.edu Dept. of Mathematics Tufts University Days, I remember cities. Nights, I dream about a perfect place. Days, I dive by the wreck. Nights, I swim in the blue lagoon.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA12466; Tue, 25 Jan 94 13:33:52 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA26699; Tue, 25 Jan 94 14:33:35 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 25 Jan 94 14:33:45 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 25 Jan 94 14:33:12 EST From: gharris@Jade.Tufts.EDU To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Rounding Date: Tue, 25 Jan 94 14:27:49 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: <11D17D03977@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Also, with respect to rounding, let me suggest that the formula for Manipulation bonus be DEX + (STR+INT)/2 - 20 rather than DEX + STR/2 + INT/2 -20. To see why, calculate the manipulation bonus with both formulae for three people, one with DEX, STR & INT all 13, one with DEX 13 INT 12 & STR 14, and one with DEX 13, INT 14 and STR 12. Under the old formula, the first would be +8 and the other two +7, while with my proposed formula they would all be +7. Just a note from a mathematician who knows you should round as few times as possible. -- George W. Harris gharris@jade.tufts.edu Dept. of Mathematics Tufts University Days, I remember cities. Nights, I dream about a perfect place. Days, I dive by the wreck. Nights, I swim in the blue lagoon.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA13277; Tue, 25 Jan 94 13:43:01 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA27273; Tue, 25 Jan 94 14:42:43 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 25 Jan 94 14:42:51 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 25 Jan 94 14:42:27 EST From: gharris@Jade.Tufts.EDU To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Sorcerous Manipulations and Matrices Date: Tue, 25 Jan 94 14:36:57 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: <11D3F5234C7@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Well, in the 2.0 sorcery supplement, the *only* effect that matrices have is that they add to your skill in casting the spell and the total amount of manipulation you can use on the spell. IN no way could you enchant intensity or duration into a matrix. So, e.g., if you knew Mystic Vision at 67% and had a +30% Mystic Vision matrix, this would allow you to cast Mystic Vision as though you knew it at 97%, and you could use 10 points of manipulation. However, you don't have the possibility of a Duration 2 Intensity 6 Enhance Strenght matrix, where those manipulations are added to the ones that you personally can per- form. So, in essence, your skill in a manipulation is a hard limit on how much of that manipulation you can put into any spell, no matter what kind of matrices you have (on the other hand, Uncut Esrolian Rubies and Godsblood crystals are another matter, but then you can't make those. -- George W. Harris gharris@jade.tufts.edu Dept. of Mathematics Tufts University Days, I remember cities. Nights, I dream about a perfect place. Days, I dive by the wreck. Nights, I swim in the blue lagoon.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA17851; Tue, 25 Jan 94 14:39:11 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA02160; Tue, 25 Jan 94 15:38:58 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 25 Jan 94 15:39:04 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 25 Jan 94 15:38:23 EST From: Brent Krupp To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RQ:Glorantha Character sheets Date: Tue, 25 Jan 1994 12:38:10 -0800 (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: <11E2E103E5A@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> As long as people might be worried about wearing out their character sheets by erasing too much, I thought I should mention a method my gaming group lifted from having played too much Star Fleet Battles in our youth. Put your character sheet in a plastic sheet protector and use a wax pencil or water-soluble marker to note damage and such. Voila! No wear and tear. You can slip the sheet out and use a (lead) pencil to make permanent changes as they (less often) occur. > I favor this method for several reasons. For one thing, it means > that the areas to be erased are spread out more -- rather than erasing > the same spot on the page for each location, the entire number row is > erasing area (if that makes sense). More erasure is required to erase a > written number than a simple underline or hatch mark. More erasure = shorter > sheet life. > Peter Maranci Malden, Massachusetts > pete@slough.mit.edu or rune@trystero.com or rune@ace.com Brent Krupp (fletcher@u.washington.edu)  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA22655; Tue, 25 Jan 94 15:33:48 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA06958; Tue, 25 Jan 94 16:33:20 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 25 Jan 94 16:33:31 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 25 Jan 94 16:33:04 EST From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: skill versus skill Date: Tue, 25 Jan 94 16:32:53 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: <11F17557EB2@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> George Harris is correct, 'low roll wins, skill breaks tie' is not equivalent to "whoever makes roll by more wins" Note that "whoever make roll by more wins (within type of success)" is equivalent to "high roll wins, within type of success" and that the latter is easier to process. The rolls are not equivalent but the probability distributions are. I will try to explain this more fully if it is not obvious to everyone. Example to show which is easier: Use the "whoever make roll by more wins (within type of success)" to evaluate the winner in this situation: You are invited to an Archery contest, with whoever gets closest to the bullseye winning. Magic is allowed. The archery contest is at long range (1/2 skill). You have a Bow Attack of 63%, and you use Speedart (for a 15% bonus) and Coordination 3 (raising your attack modifier by an additional 3%). Your rival is a better archer at 79% skill but disdains the use of magic. Who wins if you roll a 33 and he rolls a 32? --------- Now do the same contest, but use the 'higher roll wins' system. Who wins if you roll a 33 and he rolls a 32? - Paul  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA24581; Tue, 25 Jan 94 15:51:58 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA08594; Tue, 25 Jan 94 16:51:38 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 25 Jan 94 16:51:51 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 25 Jan 94 16:51:14 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RQ:Glorantha Character sheets Date: Tue, 25 Jan 1994 13:50:56 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: <11F64E417E7@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >As long as people might be worried about wearing out their character >sheets by erasing too much, I thought I should mention a method my >gaming group lifted from having played too much Star Fleet Battles in our >youth. > >Put your character sheet in a plastic sheet protector and use a wax >pencil or water-soluble marker to note damage and such. Voila! No wear >and tear. You can slip the sheet out and use a (lead) pencil to make >permanent changes as they (less often) occur. I used to be able to get (I think from work) some sort of transparent overlay that you stuck to the sheet (Scotch Magic Tape works about the same); it took pencil but was erasable. I never liked the sheet protector solution because 1) it was hard to line the sheet up accurately; 2) my grease pencil was too thick. 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA04173; Tue, 25 Jan 94 17:52:58 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA16980; Tue, 25 Jan 94 18:51:44 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 25 Jan 94 18:52:49 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 25 Jan 94 18:51:36 EST From: "Loren J. Miller" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: skill versus skill Date: 25 Jan 1994 18:48:49 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1216688335E@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Paul writes: > George Harris is correct, 'low roll wins, skill breaks tie' is not > equivalent to "whoever makes roll by more wins" True. > Note that "whoever make roll by more wins (within type of success)" > is equivalent to "high roll wins, within type of success" and that the latter > is easier to process. The rolls are not equivalent but the probability > distributions are. I will try to explain this more fully if it is not > obvious to everyone. It's obvious to me and I think to most people on the list. The problem is that somewhere in the RAIG rules it says that if you barely make your skill roll (e.g. 35% skill, roll 34) then you don't do as well as someone who succeeds with more of a margin (e.g. 35% skill, roll 14). OK, that sounds like the RQ meta-rule that "lower is better". Sticking to this principle makes the game more intuitive than occasionally switching to "highest success of same level wins". Now in our group we've been playing "highest margin of success wins" and to calculate the margin of success you subtract the roll from the adjusted skill. We've had no problem with it. Additionally, such contests are rare enough that it doesn't add any appreciable time or complexity to the game. > Example to show which is easier: > > Use the "whoever make roll by more wins (within type of success)" to > evaluate the winner in this situation: > > You are invited to an Archery contest, with whoever gets closest to the > bullseye winning. Magic is allowed. The archery contest is at long range > (1/2 skill). You have a Bow Attack of 63%, and you use Speedart (for a 15% > bonus) and Coordination 3 (raising your attack modifier by an additional 3%). Um, all this depends on whether additive bonuses apply before or after division and multiplication. Actually, this has never been clear, though I always played it that you multiplied or divided first and then added and/or subtracted. Assume for now that the way I always played it is correct, though this would be a good rule to clarify [Carl?]. > Your rival is a better archer at 79% skill but disdains the use of magic. > > Who wins if you roll a 33 and he rolls a 32? Under the highest roll wins system, you win. Under the greatest margin of success system it depends on how you apply the modifiers. Anyway, you tailored your example to prove your point, since both rolls were under 1/2 skill so you didn't have to calculate half-chances with your favorite system, but it was still required with the margin of success system. If I do the math, which I would normally do before rolling anyway, the computation is simple. You 63/2+15+3 = 50 chance roll 33 Rival 79/2 = 40 chance roll 32 These margins are easy to compute. Yours is 17 and the opponent's is 8. You win. Magic kicks ass yet again. --- Yet another reason why the margin works for me. In my games I often apply modifiers to PC skills secretly, and then tell the player to roll against the skill and tell me how much they succeeded or failed by. This is necessary when they're picking master locks and the like. I think that this shows that the margin concept is useful not only in contests but anytime the GM wants to hide information from players and their characters. --- Anyway, when I suggested the margin system in the last round of playtest responses I was told that the subtraction was too hard (!). Given that, and that I dislike the highest roll wins system because it adds another incompatible rule-system to RQ, the low roll wins system seemed to be the best choice left. Regardless, I prefer the margin system and will continue to use it, official rule or not. Maybe this is another spot where multiple rules could be put in the optional rules section in the appendix, like the aiming rules in RQ2, and let the gaming groups fight it out. 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA04963; Tue, 25 Jan 94 18:05:05 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA17824; Tue, 25 Jan 94 19:04:46 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 25 Jan 94 19:04:56 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 25 Jan 94 19:04:28 EST From: "Newton Hughes" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: nobody plays by all the rules Date: Tue, 25 Jan 94 18:01:28 CST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1219D7A7B6C@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> I get the idea from listening in on the reviews and debate here that RQ4AiG is about as screwily organized as its predecessors. Consider- ing that a) there are a hell of a lot of rules, and b) none of us play by all of them, wouldn't it make sense to organize the rules in a modular format? Start the chapter with the most essential rules and work your way down. (Elric is pretty good about this, since it iso- lates the hardest and least frequently used rules in the spot rules ghetto.) This is an example of one way the Combat chapter of RQ3 might be re-written: Core Rules: The Melee Round (statements, actions, bookkeeping) Strike Ranks (movement srs, weapon srs, missile srs, spell srs) Actions (movement, melee, missile, spell, disengage, take-up) Melee Skills (attacking, parrying, dodging) Criticals & Fumbles (attack crits, parry crits, melee & missile fumbles) Impales (double damage, parrying an impale, removing an impaling weapon) Spot Rules: Advanced Rules: Aimed Blows Knockback Combat Skills over 100% Mounted Combat Damage to Attacking Weapons Disarm Tactics Damage to Parrying Weapons Improving Combat Skills Fighting While Down Parrying/Dodging Missiles Pulling a Blow Tables: Putting On/Taking Off Armor Melee Weapons Rapid Fire (1/SR Weapons) Shields Reloading Missiles Stunning Armor Two-Weapon Use Helmets For instance, the basic rules for parrying would make no mention of damage to unsuccessful attacking weapons when the parrying weapon is a certain kind of weapon; that kind of detail goes in a spot rule, where people who want it can find it and it won't bother the rest of us. The advanced