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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA24677; Tue, 1 Feb 94 03:28:09 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA13147; Tue, 1 Feb 94 02:38:49 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 1 Feb 94 2:38:55 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 1 Feb 94 2:38:39 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: DIing Date: Mon, 31 Jan 1994 23:38:34 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: <1B9343268CA@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >Mark S. c/o Tom Yates > There are some problems with giving divine magic directly. A >master level Rune Lord gains access to 45 points of divine magic >under this system. Does Shield 25 Extension 20 seem excessive >to anyone? It's probably a pretty inappropriate use of DI, which is to resolve a situation. And depending on how weaselingly the GM interprets the rules, all DI rune spells end when the situation is over. (In tactical terms, Shield 25 is fairly silly anyway. I [mis]ran a Waha Khan's DI last night; he ended up with Shield 6. However, he was killed by critical hits, which ignore Shield 25 as surely as they ignore Protection 1.)  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA26434; Tue, 1 Feb 94 04:11:24 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA14590; Tue, 1 Feb 94 04:34:22 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 1 Feb 94 4:34:27 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 1 Feb 94 4:34:10 EST From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: RQ:AiG commits no Greg Stafford heresy Date: Tue, 1 Feb 1994 01:22:15 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: <1BB21307ED0@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Carl, Thank you for your patience and thanks also to Nick Price who kindly posted to me directly an explaination of Greg's God Learner writings. After examining the facts and completing the inquisition :-) I must conclude that there appears to be no contention between God Learner writing and the stance of RQ:AiG. Its good to hear that RuneQuest remains Greg-compatable for this was my main concern. This is symptomatic of my return to RuneQuest after a break of about a decade. I'm bound to be bemused by the tail-end of discussions that have occurred during that period. Consider me now suitable illuminated. Regards -- Guy Robinson --  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA01208; Tue, 1 Feb 94 06:44:49 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AB20676; Tue, 1 Feb 94 07:44:27 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 1 Feb 94 7:44:40 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 1 Feb 94 7:44:15 EST From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Skill vs skill, and more heresy Date: Tue, 01 Feb 1994 10:45:28 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: <1BE4C500565@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Tim Leask: > Loren J. Miller writes: > [a system with crits/fumbles on 0, etc.] > I for one am in favour of Loren's System. It also makes resolving > skill contests easy - higest successful roll wins. And causes RQ: AiG to be quite incompatible to today's RuneQuest players who are the most likely customers on the first hand, and might well p*ss them off. > This system could also be used for combat by making it a skills > contest. The system could work as follows: > The combatants make a single roll to determine the outcome for the round - > the one who makes the highest roll under their attack skill is the attacker > the other is the defender,unless a special or critical is rolled in which > case the combatant with the higher level of success is the attacker. > The defender determines if they parried successfully > by checking that their orignal roll was under their parry skill. Sounds like Pendragon to me, not like RQ/Basic Roleplaying. This is actually the part of Pendragon rules I like least, but that's personal. I grew into roleplaying with an attack/parry system all the time, and while I experienced other systems, I found them wanting in involvement from my side. One thing I use to advertise RuneQuest in Germany (e.g. tomorrow night in a lecture) is to stress its similarity to Cthulhu, which is so popular that most player you meet will at least know it. You learn the basic rules once, then remember some specialities, and start playing. I'd hate to have to remember the _differences_ each time I switch to Elric or Cthulhu (or an old RQ campaign). Even if I get accused to shoot down any attempt to improve the skill resolution method, I think the old system is fine if used appropriately. Don't fix what ain't broken! > Hey it's just an idea that popped into my head - it probably needs some > work and should probably be an optional rule. Do others see any merit in > these scheme - I'm sorry if something like this has already been dealt with. It sure has merit, only it ain't good ole RuneQuest. It's rather the brave new world of yet another roleplaying system. If yet another optional rule, RQ4 will get into a new edition of Murphy's rules under that section. Some day we might collect the "Tome of Optional Options" from suggestions from this list. -- 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 AA01826; Tue, 1 Feb 94 06:46:51 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA20722; Tue, 1 Feb 94 07:46:41 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 1 Feb 94 7:46:46 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 1 Feb 94 7:46:25 EST From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Coinage on Glorantha Date: Tue, 01 Feb 1994 13:28:44 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: <1BE55955AE5@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> This thread from RQ4-discussion can as well be discussed in the Digest, so I crosspost it. Mark Sabalauskas: > I wrote: >>> Coin prices are a useful convience for players and GM >>> alike. If a gamemaster is wants to put in the extra effort to >>> detail this part of the world,a price list is as useful a >>> place to start as a set of barter points. Most people will >>> find the effort required to model bartering a useless waste of >>> time at best, and an annoying distraction from storytelling >>> at worst. Ranges of coin prices would be better, as would a rule of thumb description how availability and distance influence the prices. > John Medway replyed: >> Why would fixed cash prices -- and what I see with it: a >> register-tape from the checkout at Target -- seem to fit >> storytelling better? Neither are appropriate for a bronze age >> society, and neither fits the picture. A society which has guilds will also know fixed prices for certain products. My guess is that any Lunar, Sartarite or Kethaelan city will have its prescribed sets of prices for certain goods, prescribed by either a powerful guild or temple, or by the mundane authorities. Bread or fish prices in Pavis under Lunar government are likely to be fixed by a council of producers and authorities, subject to fluctuating availability and political interests. Thus there will be a fixed price, although this may alter. Outside of town, barter and bargaining are the rule, except when a larger institution (such as the Cult of Geo) is involved. > If the story the players are telling has more to do with > certain aspects of a character's moral development, for example, > then they might consider bartering a waste of time that didn't > advance the story. On the other hand, if one's main interest was > social realism, then bartering would add to one's suspension of > disbelief. R:AG needs some guidelines for the value of items. But bartering does involve moral development. A miserly Orlanthi lord (like Leonidas the Short, whose mercenary contract was posted by MOB) is quite short of contracting the impests. (BTW: did Orlanth steal these from Malia?) > Money is the abstraction that both Gloranthans and we use when > talking about the value of goods. A coin price list is as > useful to gamers who barter as a a list of abstract barter > points. Again, this is true for city dwellers. Most rurals will think of bushels of barley (e.g. in case of the Sun Domers) as monetary means to pay taxes, and coins as minor tokens to pay for tolls or barge fees, if no other deal can be made. One thing in the price lists I'd really like to see are ferry rates for rivers, and bridge tolls. Again, these prices need to be given in ranges, and additionally should vary as the price lists in RQ3 do (metropolitan, urban, rural, wilds). > JM: >> Even *advanced* societies of antiquity, with coin and currency >> systems, conducted the bulk of trade, especially on a lower >> level, with barter. This is the way the people would think, buy >> and sell. Agreed, a trader will handle bulk sales with some ease. To barter say a herd of sable for several bushels of skullbush seeds, one can always give or take a bushel, or an animal. The problem arises when one wants to by exactly one animal. > A price table that lists the usual relative value of items > is not incompatible with that fact. Still, one set price will give the 20th century trained mind of the player the impression of a supermarket checkout. If there is a price range given, this allows to include small variations. Even if neither GM nor players delight in bartering, slightly increased prices for "furriners" who speak and dress funnily ought to be the rule. If the players start suspecting they're pidgeon-holed, they'll usually (out of greed and misery, you know how player characters tend to be) try and blend with the society, thus furthering suspense and roleplaying. > I agree with you that the rules would be better if they offered > the GM more advice on the reasons why prices vary. Hard and > fast rules on mercantile activity might not, however, be > possible. Rough guidelines would be better than a Traveller > type system that the players could easily crock. Agreed. Only keep the dice out of it, or the rules lawyers will insist you roll the daily market situation for satin "just in case", even if all they want to buy is some cheap wine. > I [Mark] wrote: >>> I would imagine that in Glorantha the value of the coin >>> would be based SOLELY on the value of it's metal. Iron bars would be a convenient currency, if this was the case. The value of a metal would vary from place to place. While I think it very likely for Prax to have rich copper ore (didn't a whole earth tribe die there, as well as in the Wastes?), I doubt much of it will be unearthed. By the way, what kind of metal do chaotic gods "yield" when slain? Bronze? > Devin Cutler replyed: >>This is not so. The value of Gloranthan coins is roughly twice >>its metal value. This is borne out by the value of metal rules >>in Elder Secrets and by the Lokarnos Divine Magic Mint Coin. >From GoG p.54: "This spell must be cast upon a block of gold, causing a coin to separate from the rest of the mass. It turns 10 pennyworths of th egold into a minted coin, called a wheel in common parlance. Coins are commonly worth twice their weight of raw metal, and wheels are no exceptions, being worth 20 pennies each in lands where their legality is recognized. Each wheel weighs approximately 17 grams. and one ENC of raw gold provides the raw material for exactly 60 wheels." Not quite. The prices in ES IMHO are given for Rune Metals, i.e. pure metals. RQ2 tells us: "Unalloyed, or pure, metals, such as iron, lead, tin, and copper, prevent a person from using magic unless he is ''sealed'' to the Rune connected with that metal. [...] Note that all coins are alloyed, as are gold and silver ornaments." Bolgs, Clacks and Wheels all are originally sacred items of esteem by certain groups of Gloranthans, whose esteem somewhat wore off to neighbouring peoples. To quote RQ2: "The coinage of Glorantha is based on silver. While both gold and copper are used as coins, silver is by far the most common monetary metal. Silver coinage was first introduced into Glorantha by the Lunar Empire [I don't quite believe this. What kind of currency was used by the Malkioni? Even with focus on Dragon Pass, the Jrusteli and EWF will have used and thus introduced silver coins.]. The generic term for silver coins used over the continent is the Lunar [better: lunar, no capital for the coin, according to Sandy], in honor of the Lunar Empire. However, in the empire, the basic silver coin is referred to as an Imperial. In Sartar it is called a Sovereign, and in the city of Corflu, run by various guilds, it is called a Guilder. All of these coins are roughy equivalent in value. Note that the Lunar, abbreviated n the rules as L, is worth about one pre-WW II English pound, or five US dollars." This MUST have been written from the Dragon Pass viewpoint exclusively, and seems to disregard even nearby Holy Country. Don't make the same mistake in RQ4! "Gold was the first coinage of the world, brougt to the people by the enigmatic Sun-Wheel Dancers [Gold Wheel Dancers]. In their honor, gold coins are still called Wheels. Gold, however, is scarce and very valuable. One golden Wheel equals 20 Lunars of silver. Gold is still mainly used as a means of settling debts between nations rather than individuals." Or by devout solar worshippers. Do the Sun Domers accept clacks, the metal of subservient earth, as units of currency? "Copper coins were invented by the dwarves. As is usual with any innovation brought out by that most inventive race, humans shrink from acknowledging the contribution. The copper coin is called a Clack, or often just a Copper. It takes ten Clacks to equal one Lunar." Is this still valid? The invention must have been made by Openhanded dwarfs to deal with outsiders, then, since parts of the machine don't need to be paid. RQ3 severely lacks information beyond Glorantha Book's note on p.9: "Most people make transactions in kind, rather than in coinage, although some powerful rulers or governments do mint coins on a regular basis. Such financial measures as moneylending, bookkeeping, and banking are rarely used. Only the most advanced cultures of Glorantha, such as the Lunar Empire, have entered in the economic stage in which these factors become significant." This note implies that all lands under Lunar influence, as well as all of the west, the east, and the Pamaltelan coast, which are culturally more advanced than the upstart Lunars, have these practices to some extent. > If this is how RQIII treats money, then R:AG should change the > rules. The idea that people value metal twice as much because > it is shaped into coins is silly. I'm no economic historian, > but I doubt any Gloranthan society is complex enough to issue > fiat money. Sorry, but if any cult says that e.g. kauri shells which are prepared a certain way on a certain island are worth a lot to the deity, because they please the deity, then these things are worth that much. E.g. as a convenient way to pay off cult duties. > Even if one accepted the idea that wheels are token coins, the > Coin Wheel spell is unreasonable. A divine magic spell that > creates a single wheel! The merchant cast the spell, makes a > profit of 10 lunars, and then has to spend an entire day > regaining the spell. As a merchant has a 16 lunars standard of > living; so he loses 6 lunars in the end. This economic failure ought to be corrected, true, but then coining is one of the cult duties the Lokarnos priest has. Since the Solar society propagates stasis I'd expect the value of a wheel to vary little, if at all, within their cultures. Cultures indifferent to Solar believes (Pelorian peasants, Orlanthi hill men, westerners) might apply a fluctuation based on availability and origin of the coin. To have a set value for the lunar actually is an insult to Lunar philosophy, which embraces fluctuation and (cyclical) change. A devout Etyries merchant might value it higher on days of full moon... The Holy Country guilders or west Manirian Issarian issues ought to behave normally as far as coins go. If you don't know the mint stamp, deduct some of the value, etc. Include money exchange fees in the service prices. The monetary policies of the West are still subject to philosophical discussion (do the principles of interest and inflation conflict with church doctrine, and if so, which church), and won't be resolved before "How the West Was One" at Convulsions . They lie mostly outside of the focus on Dragon Pass, anyway (although I just came up with a scenario idea for my planned Hendriki RQ:AiG-campaign). One advantage of temple-coined wheels (or dwarf-minted clacks) might be that they cannot be clipped without destroying the "magic" of the coin. With silver coins, however, Trickster has all the fun. I wonder what role Bolgs do play in the Holy Country, before and after Belintar's arrival. -- 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 AA05620; Tue, 1 Feb 94 08:27:13 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25409; Tue, 1 Feb 94 09:26:47 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 1 Feb 94 9:27:08 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 1 Feb 94 9:26:39 EST From: fkiesche3@aol.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Daffey of L'Orange Date: Tue, 01 Feb 94 09:32:02 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: <1C0014D1A46@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> SAVE THE DUCKS!!!! Fred Kiesche (FKiesche3@aol.com)  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA21583; Tue, 1 Feb 94 10:43:50 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA05852; Tue, 1 Feb 94 11:42:35 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 1 Feb 94 11:43:45 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 1 Feb 94 11:42:21 EST From: "Loren J. Miller" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Loren's crit/special rolling method Date: 01 Feb 1994 11:20:50 -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 X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1C2445464F8@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Hey! I never said I *like* this method! I was just offering it up as a devil's advocate thing. Personally, I'm against the high roll under skill wins contests rule, and for either 1. best degree of success wins (special beats normal, etc) and highest skill wins if degrees are tied and there has to be a winner. 2. best degree of success wins, and highest margin of success in same degree is the winner. And I'd stick with the same old critical and special rules, maybe adding some Steve Maureresque super criticals (going from 1/5 to 1/20 to 1/100 to 1/500 to 1/2000 to 1/10000 and so on) if they are necessary for runelevels. -- Loren  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA24671; Tue, 1 Feb 94 11:13:26 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA08241; Tue, 1 Feb 94 12:13:17 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 1 Feb 94 12:13:21 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 1 Feb 94 12:13:00 EST From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Initiative in RQ. Date: Tue, 1 Feb 94 12:12:50 -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: <1C2C7377D5A@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Okay, here is how I handled "initiative" problems in my RQIII and my RQIVd2.0 campaigns: I first enforced the "statement of intent" rule, but I did so thus: Statement of intent was done i ..  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA24774; Tue, 1 Feb 94 11:14:37 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA08311; Tue, 1 Feb 94 12:14:27 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 1 Feb 94 12:14:31 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 1 Feb 94 12:14:22 EST From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: my last message Date: Tue, 1 Feb 94 12:14:12 -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: <1C2CCED7702@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Please ignore the last message I posted to this list--for some reason the version of Telnet I'm using doesn't recognize ^C inturrupts (I have to use a sequence to send "inturrupt" from my micro to the mainframe).  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA13103; Tue, 1 Feb 94 14:21:14 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA08924; Tue, 1 Feb 94 12:20:16 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 1 Feb 94 12:20:25 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 1 Feb 94 12:19:59 EST From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: A COW! Date: Tue, 1 Feb 94 12:19:51 -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: <1C2E4EB623A@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Making the standard of barter to be a cow is rather excessive, that would be like defining the standard of exchange for the daily US material economy as $100.00 bills (or maybe $1,000.00 bills)! I think a chicken standard would be a good deal more realistic, either that or a grain standard (then you would also have ready-made archaic divisions of bushel, quart, etc.)  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA13799; Mon, 31 Jan 94 19:23:00 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA27985; Mon, 31 Jan 94 20:22:47 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 31 Jan 94 20:22:55 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 31 Jan 94 20:22:33 EST From: Tim Leask To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Skill vs skill, and more heresy Date: Tue, 1 Feb 94 12:22:25 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: <1B2EF446F0D@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Loren J. Miller writes: > > Given that some people like Paul Reilly think we should discard the > "lower is better" philosophy in RQ, what is their reason for sticking > with that philosophy for critical and special successes? > > If I wanted to abandon the lower is better philosophy I'd also change > the way crits and specials are computed, so that people didn't have to > divide by 5 or 20. Here's the first thing I'd try. > > Any roll where the ones digit is a 0 and the tens digit is even is a > critical. If it is a success then it's a critical success, if it's a > failure then it's a fumble. > > Any roll where the ones digit is a 0 or 5 is a special. If it is a > success then it's a special success (impale, etc). If it's a failure > it's a botch (if you use that rule). > > This system is also a simple comparison system, just like the high roll > under skill system for skill contests. Do you like it? For the most part > it's simple, but if skills get over 100 then you have to do some weird > stuff to get it to work out the same. [ Stuff about skills > 100% deleted for brevity ] I for one am in favour of Loren's System. It also makes resolving skill contests easy - higest successful roll wins. This system could also be used for combat by making it a skills contest. The system could work as follows: The combatants make a single roll to determine the outcome for the round - the one who makes the highest roll under their attack skill is the attacker the other is the defender,unless a special or critical is rolled in which case the combatant with the higher level of success is the attacker. The defender determines if they parried successfully by checking that their orignal roll was under their parry skill. One possible problem is that special and critical parries would occur less frequently because of the recycled dice roll. Hey it's just an idea that popped into my head - it probably needs some work and should probably be an optional rule. Do others see any merit in these scheme - I'm sorry if something like this has already been dealt with. Cheers, Tim Leask ================================================================================ Department of Computer Science /*\__/\ "Money is something you have in University of Melbourne < \ case you don't die tomorrow." Parkville, Vic., 3052, AUSTRALIA \ _ _/ Gordon Gecko. Phone: +61 3 282 2439 \| -- e-mail: tsl@cs.mu.oz.au ================================================================================  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA17525; Tue, 1 Feb 94 14:58:00 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA09486; Tue, 1 Feb 94 12:28:18 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 1 Feb 94 12:28:25 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 1 Feb 94 12:27:47 EST From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: redoing criticals and specials. Date: Tue, 1 Feb 94 12:27:23 -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: <1C306163490@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> I read through the proposal Loren put up and my head is spinning. Maybe I'm just a geek, but I prefer 5% and 20% of skill % to determine special and critical (AND I prefer that low rolls remain better than high rolls). Why my preference--well, I just took one sentence to explain how to derive the chance of getting a special or a critical, no?  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA28560; Tue, 1 Feb 94 17:04:12 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25212; Tue, 1 Feb 94 15:45:14 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 1 Feb 94 15:45:23 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 1 Feb 94 15:41:28 EST From: jjm@zycor.lgc.com (johnjmedway) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: re: Ducks, Ducks And, More Ducks Date: Tue, 1 Feb 94 14:39:16 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: <1C6409C7699@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >> From: David Dunham >> Subject: Ducks, Ducks And, More Ducks >> Date: Mon, 31 Jan 1994 12:04:51 PST >> >> edition Pendragon. I don't think I'd be very likely to buy a new game >> that's 280 pages long [RQ3 in the new printing], it's just too >> intimidating. And not only are big games intimidating, they're more >> expensive. I dunno if this is a real problem. Look at the size of Champions or the new version of GURPS. They're pretty sizeable too. Doesn't seem to slow sales too much. >> I've NEVER seen a campaign with a duck PC. (Duck NPCs, yes -- one GM was >> very fond of 'em.) Ditto. >> And I also think ducks don't have the importance to Glorantha (or GMs) of >> dragonewts. It may be true that Aldryami and Mostali aren't player species, >> but given that you have Elves and Dwarves, it's vital to let people know >> that in Glorantha, they're very different from AD&D, more important than Dragonnewts are central and alien, and must be included. Aldyami are also alien, and must be described to set them clearly apart from "elves" ( a term we perhaps should try to avoid, for the same reason ) Dwarves are alien, but not so far from prior conceptions as the aldryami. Humans probably have the least contact with these guys, as well. Drop 'em. Ducks are stupid and fun, though I have always hated them. Put 'em in. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 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 AA26503; Tue, 1 Feb 94 16:45:31 -0600 Return-Path: <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA03928; Tue, 1 Feb 94 17:45:01 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 1 Feb 94 17:45:27 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 1 Feb 94 17:38:32 EST From: Nick Brooke <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Warerans Date: 01 Feb 94 17:10:02 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: <1C8341B1480@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> ___________ Sandy said: > Some people persist in spelling the dominant Genertelan racial type > "Wareran". Despite possible misprints of which I am not aware, the > name is "Wereran". I am in hopes that this misspelling can be > corrected before it reaches the level of "Pharoah/Pharaoh", "Lhankor > Mhy/Lankhor Mhy", or "Kahn/Khan". Very surprising. I assumed the name came from Warera, the Ludoch Triolini wife of Aerlit and mother of Malkion (thus all humanity). Not one of the published or unpublished sources I've seen ever spelled her name "Werera". There's only one RQ supplement that refers to "Warerans", frequently: the Glorantha boxed set. Where it is always spelled "Wareran". The only place I've ever seen "Wereran" is on yesterday's RQ Daily, in your post. Odd. _____________ Re: Pole Star I like to imagine a Polaris-worshipping general having Star-worshipping captains under him. Like his deity, he stands in the centre and directs. They move, obedient to his command and design. This way, "Initiates" of Polaris would in fact worship other stars under his command (that's the ordinary officers). The Rune Lords (Generals) would be the true Polaris worshippers. I may be playing one this weekend, so I'll let you know what happens. ==== Nick ====  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA26421; Tue, 1 Feb 94 16:45:07 -0600 Return-Path: <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA03539; Tue, 1 Feb 94 17:39:07 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 1 Feb 94 17:44:56 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 1 Feb 94 17:36:02 EST From: Nick Brooke <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Two Checks?? Date: 01 Feb 94 17:11:02 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: <1C829731EEB@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> I agree with David Dunham. The revised mechanism proposed for skill increase by Oliver is still horribly clunky. I would prefer the 1D3/1D6/2D6 gain for Hard/Medium/Easy skills, and am not too bothered by the average 7% gain in an Easy skill. RQ2 had a fixed 5% gain -- not too different. OJ's new system would offer the chance of two 1D6 gains -- again offering the chance of a 12% leap for a single experience check, at the price of a clunkier mechanic. Besides, I have a sneaking feeling that something odd happens to probability when you get one roll for every two checks or two rolls for every check -- the variables are no longer directly comparable. End of story: all skills should get checks when used under stress (checks awarded at the GM's discretion, *irrespective* of success or failure), or when used for protracted periods (e.g. Ride, Speak Other, Crafts, etc.). The skill gain per successful check depends on the ease of the skill. This is simple, requiring no extra work on the part of GM or player. The same mechanic is used for all skill gains. OJ's desired doubling from Hard to Medium to Easy is maintained. The max. 12% gain in an Easy skill is preserved from OJ's system (along with the seldom-considered min. 2% gain). What's wrong with that? On the same lines as that seldom-considered low roll, have people objecting to the Skill vs. Skill rules noticed that, in a contest between 10% and 90% characters, *most* of the time there is *no* contest. As there should be. The current rules reflect this admirably. (Note too that the 90% guy is almost twice as likely to Special (and win) as the 10% guy is to Succeed. Because I play little people most of the time, I feel there is little point in further skewing the rules against us. (I also feel it's not important to have a rule-set that allows the Crimson Bat to take on PCs one-to-one. Unlike some contributors). ==== Nick ====  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA16064; Wed, 2 Feb 94 00:18:37 -0600 Return-Path: <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA07764; Tue, 1 Feb 94 18:30:33 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 1 Feb 94 18:30:42 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 1 Feb 94 18:30:23 EST From: Nick Brooke <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Skill Gains Date: 01 Feb 94 17:58:15 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: <1C9116B244F@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Aha! Thanks to David Dunham for a parallel thread which suggested this: Perhaps the mechanism for skill gains through experience should be based entirely on 1D6 rolls. Easy skill: roll 2D6 and take the higher die as the experience gain. Medium skill: roll 1D6 for the experience gain (as normal). Hard skill: roll 2D6 and take the lower die as the experience gain. Probability distribution in 36ths is (11 - 9 - 7 - 5 - 3 - 1) whichever way, giving average gains of around 2.53 Hard, 3.5 Medium, 4.57 Easy. The maximum gain for *any* skill is 6 points at a time -- it just happens to come up 30% of the time for Easy skills, 2.7% of the time for Hard skills. Still doesn't have OJ's desired doubling (Hard x1.38 = Medium x1.31 = Easy), and I *still* think I'd prefer 1D3/1D6/2D6 (and stuff the occasional 12%ish increases: not a major problem). But now I've thought of it... ==== Nick ====  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA28769; Tue, 1 Feb 94 17:06:22 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA05808; Tue, 1 Feb 94 18:06:04 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 1 Feb 94 18:06:14 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 1 Feb 94 18:05:56 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Two Checks?? Date: Tue, 01 Feb 1994 15:05:51 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: <1C8A91A7FB2@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Nick Brooke not only agreed with me but also said: >End of story: all skills should get checks when used under stress (checks >awarded at the GM's discretion, *irrespective* of success or failure), or >when used for protracted periods (e.g. Ride, Speak Other, Crafts, etc.). >The skill gain per successful check depends on the ease of the skill. Which is simple and should be the only rule needed for skill gain. (I never liked the "check everything but roll only a few" idea -- did anyone else?) It's a lot easier for the GM to say, "even though you fumbled your roll, you had the audacity to play your bagpipes before the Esrolian Queen, so you get a check," as opposed to, "Yes, you rolled very well, but you only played one song, and I just remembered that bagpipe is a Hard skill, so you won't get a check. You mean I told you that last time? Then I guess you get a check after all."  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA29759; Tue, 1 Feb 94 17:20:26 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA07204; Tue, 1 Feb 94 18:20:15 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 1 Feb 94 18:20:24 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 1 Feb 94 18:19:59 EST From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: A COW! & Duckjs ! Date: Tue, 1 Feb 94 18:19:40 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: <1C8E4FD7189@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> But cows were used _often_ as a value standard in the Bronze Age, at least from Ireland to India and down into Africa. Toi cut down on # messages, I will also reply to John Medway: >> I've NEVER seen a campaign with a duck PC. (Duck NPCs, yes -- one GM was >> very fond of 'em.) >Ducks are stupid and fun, though I have always hated them. Put 'em in. We have had several Duck PC's and NPC's in our campaign. Well, at least 2 1/2 PCs. Ducks are very popular with Ogre and Troll characters ("Pass the orange sauce")  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA02900; Tue, 1 Feb 94 17:51:14 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA08813; Tue, 1 Feb 94 18:51:03 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 1 Feb 94 18:51:11 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 1 Feb 94 18:50:50 EST From: JOVANOVIC@CUCCFA.CCC.COLUMBIA.EDU To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: DIing Date: Tue, 1 Feb 1994 18:46:50 -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: <1C968B16385@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> With respect to the comment on DI being used to cast large extended spells, the spell effects granted by DI are specifically meant to expire once the situation (melee, confrontation, etc.) is over. As to whether this is unbalancing, hopefully this is something playtesting will address - we would like to see DI be fairly terrifying in its effects, but not make the situation hopeless for the other side. A Rune Lord or priest will have access to a large amount of magic, but how unbalancing this is, considering the rarity of DI, is a good question. I'm not too concerned about spells such as Shield 20 - criticals ignore these, and faced with a foe immune to spells and weapons, opponents can flee or get creative (ie drown the foe, drop things on him or her, etc.). I'm more concerned about the ability to spread spells among other initiates. In any case, as people run it, they'll hopefully have situations in which DIs occur, and we'll get feedback as to how well this mechanic seems to work. Oliver  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA03689; Tue, 1 Feb 94 18:05:16 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA09698; Tue, 1 Feb 94 19:05:05 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 1 Feb 94 19:05:13 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 1 Feb 94 19:04:53 EST From: "Andrew J. Weill" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Spell incompatability and higher level playing Date: Tue, 1 Feb 1994 16:00:04 -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: <1C9A498223F@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> On Mon, 31 Jan 1994 devinc@aol.com wrote: > I can easily see an Orlanthi Runelord fighting Lunars, Chaos, etc. in his 90% > cult time, all of which make for good adventures. In addition, intrigue and Redundant, to a Wind Lord. :) ---Andy Weill  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA04362; Tue, 1 Feb 94 18:18:48 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA10380; Tue, 1 Feb 94 19:18:24 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 1 Feb 94 19:18:38 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 1 Feb 94 19:18:08 EST From: "Andrew J. Weill" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Ducks Date: Tue, 1 Feb 1994 16:13:45 -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: <1C9DD1070F8@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> On Mon, 31 Jan 1994, David Cheng wrote: > I understand there is a significant contingent of players who think > the whole Duck thing is a farce, and they would like to see Ducks > exterminated from the game. I think Ducks are a perfectly valid, > though misunderstood, race. Gee, David, I say that Ducks are a perfectly valid, despite being understood, race. Personally, I don't see why in a land of werewolves, jack o'bears, centaurs, satyrs, minotaurs, and broos, there isn't room for ducks. How difficult could it be to write up ducks? ---Andy Weill  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA08421; Tue, 1 Feb 94 18:57:13 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA12299; Tue, 1 Feb 94 19:56:58 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 1 Feb 94 19:57:10 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 1 Feb 94 19:56:52 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: DIing Date: Tue, 01 Feb 1994 16:56:47 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: <1CA826A1D0A@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >With respect to the comment on DI being used to cast large extended >spells, the spell effects granted by DI are specifically meant to >expire once the situation (melee, confrontation, etc.) is over. That wasn't clear from the wording.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA24367; Wed, 2 Feb 94 03:03:47 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA14240; Tue, 1 Feb 94 20:40:02 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 1 Feb 94 20:40:12 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 1 Feb 94 20:39:54 EST From: Brent Krupp To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: RE: Getting two to four copies of several Digest messages... Date: Tue, 1 Feb 1994 17:39:46 -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: <1CB3A123BE1@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Am I the only one getting between two and four copies of various peoples posts (especially Loren's and Mr. Medway's)? If so, ignore this, but if not, could some in charge kind of person fix the problem? 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 AA11996; Tue, 1 Feb 94 20:02:09 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA14863; Tue, 1 Feb 94 20:57:32 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 1 Feb 94 21:02:06 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 1 Feb 94 20:57:25 EST From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: RE: Getting two to four copies of several Digest messages... Date: Tue, 1 Feb 94 20:57:12 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: <1CB84D10C29@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> I am also receiving multiple copies. I recommend that no-one else answer after they see this, to avoid straining already overloaded mailers... - Paul Reilly  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA13980; Tue, 1 Feb 94 20:43:54 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA17439; Tue, 1 Feb 94 21:43:42 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 1 Feb 94 21:43:51 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 1 Feb 94 21:43:26 EST From: David Cake To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Skill vs skill, and more heresy Date: Wed, 2 Feb 94 10:42:34 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: <1CC49326E7D@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Can I just say that I like the proposed new mechanic, and I think that it is very clever, and PLEASE DO NOT USE IT. RQ needs some consistency. Please, just lets stick with ' lower is better' , which we all know and understand, and which, more importantly, is already the way RQ (and published stuff which we need to maintain compatibilty with) does it. Actually I prefer, as a slightly more complex rules (but one which Pendragon finds the need for as well) the rule 'best level of sucess wins, other wise lowest roll' ie 03 beats 05 - unless 05 is a critical and 03 is only a special. Or 40 beats 70 - unless 40 is a failure and 70 is a sucess. I like this more than the RQ4 maneouver style contest of sucess level, which results in stalemate more than half the time. It also works the way RQ has always worked. I don't wish to appear a whining conservative (well, those of you who followed my input know that I am not at all), but on this particular issue I feel that it very definately should come down to conservatism - the marginal gain is very small, and it is a very big change to the game system (even if it looks similar probability wise, it will not go down well with a largely conservative RQ2 audience that we are trying hard to win back). RQ4 should appear to be a simple and natural transition. Cheers Dave  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA11392; Thu, 3 Feb 94 00:43:49 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA00891; Wed, 2 Feb 94 19:56:22 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 19:56:28 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 19:56:20 EST From: imlac@acs.bu.edu (Eric Johnson-DeBaufre) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: unsubscribe Date: Tue, 1 Feb 94 22:35:44 -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: <1E281035521@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu>  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA03374; Tue, 1 Feb 94 21:36:32 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA19855; Tue, 1 Feb 94 22:36:17 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 1 Feb 94 22:36:29 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 1 Feb 94 22:36:12 EST From: Carl Fink To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Ducks Date: Tue, 1 Feb 1994 22:36:00 -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: <1CD2A5454D2@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Is anyone else getting between two and four copies of some messages from the list?  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA21758; Wed, 2 Feb 94 01:59:37 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA20485; Tue, 1 Feb 94 22:49:18 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 1 Feb 94 22:49:25 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 1 Feb 94 22:49:14 EST From: David Cake To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Recent comments Date: Wed, 2 Feb 94 11:48:22 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: <1CD61FC2113@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > > 2) Ducks. Everyone knows the importance of ducks in Glorantha. > Where else can you turn when you run out of trollball trollkin? > Seriously, their omission had nothing to do with the ancient > council of conspirators that drove the ducks from their > ancestral home of Ganderland and has been the secret driving > force behind their slow extinction ever since....honest . > Actually, they were simply left out because the creatures section > is not quite complete. Ducks and a few other creatures are planned > for inclusion, once we trim a few other creature descriptions down > to size (elementals in particular), so fear not. > Can I make an extremist suggestion here? I feel that a major goal of the RQ4 effort should be to absolutely minimize the number of supplements that need to be reissued. In accordance with this, I am in favour of making the Divine magic Rune Lord/Acolyte/Priest rules deliberately vague (so that GOG is assumed to supersede where appropiate), keeping pretty much the same hit location tables at least for non-humans (so that Gloranthan Bestiary is still perfectly useful) and in general keeping a perspective on rules design that means that nowhere is compatibilty destroyed where the benefit of the the new rules is small enough that the need to reissue a valuable old supplement is worse than the problem fixed (please bear this general principle in mind when considering various rules nitpicks, guys). But there is one area where the new rules definately supersed the old ones, and the supplements that use them, and they so they should, because the new rules are a big improvement. This is character creation. Now, in order to ensure that valuable old supplements do not need to be reissued, I suggest a bold step - including all the updated parts in RQ:AiG This could take a fair few pages, aybe 10 or so -BUT THINK OF THE ALTERNATIVE. Waiting 3 years before AH/Chaosium get around to reissueing Elder Secrets and the Players book of Genertela. I think that all the character creation rules from both these supplements - including all the silly non-humans - should be included in RQ-AiG, along with any updates to old supplements deemed necessary. Only the absolute minimum of rules is needed, no description or whatever. NB: part of my drive for this strategy comes from seeing the update from Shadowrun 1 to 2. This change involved very major changes to the rules, including reworking most of the combat system and the magic rules - and they needed to re-release only one of at least a dozen supplements. Part of the reason was a summary of updated rules for various gadgets and critters in the back of the rulesbook. Lets make the RQ changeover between editions as easy, especially considering the disasters caused by the need to re-release all the RQ2 supplements, most of which still haven't been done. [RQ:AiG is driven by the need for a ] > viable alternative system of Gloranthan magic that can compete with, > but is different from divine and spirit magic. The characteristics > of Gloranthan sorcery are that it is skill based, and potentially > soul destroying. I agree with the skill based bit, but where does the soul-destroying bit come from? I think that you hve been listening to priestly propaganda. Sorcery is potentially soul-destroying - but so are divine and spirit magic, they just won't admit it. Just ask the Malkioni -'No, sorcery is the only magic that is inherently soul-preserving, stressing self-reliance and independance. What a strange question, have you been listening to barbarian heathens again?' NB. my comments are based on RQ4d2.0, and the RQ4 sorcery draft 1.0, as I have not seen RQ:AiG yet, but comments by those who have seem to indivate that the system has changed little. Sorcery in Glorantha does not consist of sorcerers, > even master sorcerers, that can maintain dozens of small spells, or > easily cast spells at great ranges, and the mechanics intentionally > reflect this. Well, I am not convinced. The only sorcery we have is the sorcery that does allow this. WHile I agree that it needs to be toned down, it does not need to be as completely destroyed as you version does Personally, I think that skilled sorcerers can maintain many small spells or cast long ones if they put their mind to it (though they probably do not do so all the time), and I have only Olivers word that they don't :-) Gregs comments that I have here not as cut and dried on the subject as Olivers either, I seem to recall. Unlike divine magic, the expenditure of POW is not > a requirement to be a successful sorcerer. Sorcerers can cast and > maintain spells without ever resorting to the use of POW. However, > much as with DI, sorcerers have the ability to create extraordinary > effects in desperate situations by expending POW. That's more the > flavor we're looking for, namely that there exists this temptation > to partially destroy one's soul in exchange for great, if transient > power. Well, I am sorry to tell you, but it is not much of a temptation. Very few people are likely to even bother putting much effort into building up range and duration to a high level under the current rules, when they can spend their time much more profitably on Intensity and Multispell. And unless their Duration is ridiculously high, it is unlikely that they would bother using the extended tables, when they can just go and enchant something that is going to be far more useful generally. Sorry, but this is one thing about RQ4/AIG that I just hate - the desire to completely remove the extended range/duration as a viable option. (and I am sorry, but permanent POW for very dull and difficult 1-use effects is not a viable option) > We're also very interested in any comments we get from people > actually running the rules as to balance, playability, ease of use, > etc. Part of our goal is to allow schools to differentiate themselves > by the use of unusual maniplations, which may have very different > effects than the manipulations and basic mechanics described, but we > would like to at least present a consistent system of basic sorcery > mechanics. > Thanks again for all your comments and input, > > Oliver Jovanovic > jovanovic@cuccfa.ccc.columbia.edu > > > Cheers Dave Cake  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA20312; Wed, 2 Feb 94 01:40:08 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA21801; Tue, 1 Feb 94 23:22:48 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 1 Feb 94 23:22:54 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 1 Feb 94 23:22:34 EST From: David Cheng To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Two Checks?? Date: Tue, 1 Feb 94 23:19:39 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: <1CDF0391E1C@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Graeme Lindsell says: # As one of the people who objected to the 1d3/1d6/2d6 idea in the first draft # I'd better speak up. My main worry was that Easy skills with 2d6 would # seriously unbalance the progression of characters to rune lord level: # those cults with Easy skills needed for rune level would have a lot more # rune levels than those with a lot of Hard skills. I know this isn't a big # problem for people like Nick who play characters around the 40%-60% skill # level, but it'd be a problem in high power campaigns. I think this is a moot point for two reasons: 1) How many cults, especially those that PCs favor, have Easy skills required for Rune Lord status? 2) I think this puts the cart before the horse. The focus for making Rune Lord should not be a binary checkoff of five skill percentages. Let's keep the good skill advancement rule, and rewrite the way we recognize cult RuneMasters. * David Cheng drcheng@sales.stern.nyu.edu / d.cheng@GEnie.geis.com Ask Appel & Rowe about RuneQuest-Con (212) 472-7752 [before midnight]  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA24566; Wed, 2 Feb 94 03:12:55 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA23860; Wed, 2 Feb 94 00:20:34 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 0:20:43 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 0:20:19 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: RQ:AiG vs GoG Date: Tue, 01 Feb 1994 21:20:07 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: <1CEE6AE2350@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David Cake said: >I am in favour of making the Divine >magic Rune Lord/Acolyte/Priest rules deliberately vague (so that GOG is >assumed to supersede where appropiate) I would assume that RQ:AiG, being a later work, supersedes. Obviously, this sort of thing should NOT be left to assumption, but clearly stated. >in order to ensure that valuable old supplements do not need to >be reissued, I suggest a bold step - including all the updated parts in RQ:AiG >This could take a fair few pages, aybe 10 or so -BUT THINK OF THE ALTERNATIVE. >Waiting 3 years before AH/Chaosium get around to reissueing Elder Secrets and >the Players book of Genertela. I think that all the character creation rules >from both these supplements - including all the silly non-humans - should >be included in RQ-AiG, along with any updates to old supplements deemed >necessary. Only the absolute minimum of rules is needed, no description or >whatever. I imagine nothing will be reissued as a result of new rules. We're far better off getting new works. [broken record warning] And once again, an otherwise good idea ends up bulking up RQ:AiG. This is going to end up as a monster work that will be so big that nobody can find anything, and beginners are going to steer clear of. Let's say we want to double the RQ players. That means (at least) half of all copies have to sell to people who already have them. It's a mistake to design the game for those who already like it. We like what there is. The people who didn't like it don't like what there is. Therefore, it should be different somehow. Obviously, putting back a cool default world is one difference. But I'll bet more people are turned off by RuneQuest being too complex for their tastes than by it being not detailed enough. I don't believe you can do Glorantha justice in a single volume. There's nothing wrong with supplements, and those supplements could eaily overlap existing ones and provide more detail. 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 AA29919; Wed, 2 Feb 94 05:47:51 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25877; Wed, 2 Feb 94 01:12:09 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 1:12:20 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 1:11:55 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: re: game size Date: Tue, 01 Feb 1994 22:11:46 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: <1CFC2E02DAC@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> John Medway replied to me: >I dunno if this is a real problem. Look at the size of Champions or the >new version of GURPS. They're pretty sizeable too. Doesn't seem to slow >sales too much. I could argue that the 120 page RQ2 was more popular than the 280 page RQ3... Maybe I'm wrong, but _I'm_ put off by huge works, and I'm a fairly dedicated gamer. Would you become a gamer if you thought you had to read a 300 page tome? If you weren't a gamer, would you be more interested in becoming one if you had to buy a $15 book or a $30 book? I seem to be the only person bothered by this, but then, if you subscribe to this list, you're probably a pretty hard-core fan. Does anyone know if Avalon Hill has done any market research on this? The problem is, RQ:AiG is fairly well done, and it's hard to know what to cut (I've seen many places that editing could tighten up the prose and save some words, but that's a minimal savings). I've only seen requests to put more stuff in. There's more stuff _I'd_ like to see in the product, but it might be far better to put it in a supplement. One idea would be to yank Sorcery and put it in a Western sourcebook (problem: the rest of that sourcebook probably isn't ready). The detailed shaman rules could go in a Prax sourcebook (again, such a work may not be ready for publication within a month or two of RQ:AiG). All optional combat rules could go into a "Gods of War" supplement, which detailed Humakt, Yanafal Tarnils, Wachaza, etc. Oliver implied that while the supplement route wouldn't cost the gamer that much, it would be a lot more work, and thus wouldn't happen.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA22687; Wed, 2 Feb 94 02:29:16 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA28838; Wed, 2 Feb 94 03:29:03 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 3:29:09 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 3:28:52 EST From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: redoing criticals and specials. Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 00:28:13 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: <1D20B460324@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Bryan J. Maloney (jacobus@sonata) writes: >Maybe I'm just a geek, but I prefer 5% and 20% of skill % to determine >special and critical (AND I prefer that low rolls remain better than high >rolls). The reason why I prefer the original system is that I feel it encourages better mental arithmetic. Rather than just looking for numbers on dice you are actually using precentages. As someone who encountered role playing at the age of eleven, and now has a compartively innumerate step-son who is only interested in very simple war games, I recognise the benefits that learning and playing a role playing game can bring. Keep it simple, keep it arithmetic, is my advice. Regards -- Guy Robinson --  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA22887; Wed, 2 Feb 94 02:36:31 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA28971; Wed, 2 Feb 94 03:36:20 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 3:36:27 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 3:36:08 EST From: Brian Jackson To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Ducks Date: Wed, 2 Feb 94 8:34:26 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: <1D22A4D661E@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Stop picking on them poor little Ducks. When I introduced Ducks to my players (who are all new to RQ) they thought I was taking the mick, but now they love them. SAVE THE DUCKS !!!! Brian Jackson  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA23985; Wed, 2 Feb 94 02:52:01 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA29224; Wed, 2 Feb 94 03:51:49 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 3:51:56 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 3:51:39 EST From: JOVANOVIC@CUCCFA.CCC.COLUMBIA.EDU To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Sorcery Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 3:52:01 -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: <1D26C7D70CD@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David and Graeme - to address a few of your concerns - extended duration is still a viable option, without the expenditure of POW. Essentially, a manipulation called maintain allows you to maintain extended spells (of roughly up to skill/10 in Intensity, twice that amount with a familiar). In addition, through the expenditure of 1 point of POW, you can add another extended spell (through Maintain or Duration). Frankly, if you gave a spirit or divine magician a chance to maintain a spell (say a Protection 6, Strength 6, Bladesharp 8, etc.) at a cost of 1 POW, I think they would jump at the chance. Also, sorcery (and other spells) have been somewhat rebalanced. In addition to changes to specific sorcery spells (ie many are Easy skills), it is much harder for spirit or divine magicians to obtain large cult or spirit magic spells. Thus, although a sorcerer has a greater initial investment of time learning spells, he or she can accumulate far more spells than a spirit or divine magician, and eventually gain access to spells of far greater intensity. Among the local playtest groups, the current system seems to balance fairly well, and sorcerers do occassionally burn POW (generally in desperate situations). However, we're far less concerned with how this system functions compared to RQIII than how well it functions on its own, as a viable system of magic, one thing we hpe to get feedback on from those of you running the new sorcery rules. Hope that clarifies things somewhat (since I don't think you have access to a copy of the new rules, at least not yet). Oliver P.S. I too am getting multiple copies of messages, though there does not seem to be a clear pattern as to which messages get duplicated.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA24101; Wed, 2 Feb 94 02:54:39 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA29257; Wed, 2 Feb 94 03:54:28 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 3:54:36 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 3:54:19 EST From: JOVANOVIC@CUCCFA.CCC.COLUMBIA.EDU To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Ad copy Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 3:54:36 -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: <1D277D610E1@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Folks, we'd appreciate your input (comments and suggestions welcomed) for some initial ad copy for RuneQuest: Adventures in Glorantha. Some sample copy follows. Thanks, Oliver RuneQuest: Adventures in Glorantha A game of epic roleplaying - Walk through a land of myth, armed and armored with the bones of the gods. - Explore the ancient magics of the world of Glorantha. - Probe the forbidden secrets of the God Learners. - Bring the light of the Red Moon and the civilization of the Lunar Empire to the dark lands of the savage Orlanthi. - Save your people from the decadent Lunar Empire, which embraces the worship of chaos and seeks to shackle your gods and people. Forget realms best forgotten, run from the shadows, leave the masquerade behind...Glorantha's back. In 1978, RuneQuest took the gaming world by storm, setting the standard for what roleplaying games would become. In 1994, Adventures in Glorantha will do it again. Adventures in Glorantha is the perfect introduction to roleplaying. It tells you what a fantasy roleplaying game is, how to create an adventurer, and provides you with the detailed mechanics and comprehensive background material needed to begin play in Greg Stafford's magical world of Glorantha. The game provides everything you need to begin your adventures in Glorantha with this game of epic storytelling. For the advanced player, Adventures in Glorantha provides innovative rules and comprehensive background material, and the best developed game world in existence, Glorantha, a world in which creation has not stopped. It allows you enter a world unlike any other, where you can learn the inner mysteries of the gods and venture on unexplored paths of mythic reality. In Adventures in Glorantha, you explore the land of Dragon Pass, where mile long dragons sleep, mistaken for mountains and hills, or a myriad of other places, lands and cultures. Glorantha is a world of magic and magicians, where anyone can learn to use magic. You can call on the gods to become their avatar to defeat your foes...but at what cost? Crisis is at hand - it the time of the Hero Wars, where the forces of the Lunar Empire will confront an uneasy alliance of foes. Benevolent missionaries, well meaning officials, homesick soldiers...these are the bad guys? Barbaric warriors, savage beast riders, dangerous rebels...these are the good guys? First there came the renaissance, now is the time for the reformation. Leave the mundane world behind and begin your adventures in Glorantha. And, for your entertainment, some of the ones that didn't make it past the first cut : Enjoy a mythology so rich and original, Joseph Campbell would turn livid with envy. Face minions of chaos so horrifying, H.P. Lovecraft's hair would turn white. Join cults so terrifying, David Koresh would flee in horror. In my opinion, the greatest game ever written. Sacrifice your eternal soul for power unimaginable... Worship a hundred different gods of death...  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA28389; Wed, 2 Feb 94 04:49:56 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01100; Wed, 2 Feb 94 05:49:48 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 5:49:53 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 5:49:40 EST From: Henk.Langeveld@Holland.Sun.COM (Henk Langeveld - Sun Nederland) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: character sheet Date: Wed, 2 Feb 94 11:50:27 +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: <1D464230AAB@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> In rq-playtest you write: >(Anyone who'd like my RQ4 character sheet, let me know. Like RQ:AiG, it's >available only on paper, so email your address or a SASE >David Dunham >532 N 71st St >Seattle, WA 98103-5127 ) Henk Langeveld Steenbes 9 NL-3823 CC Amersfoort The Netherlands -- 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 AA19141; Thu, 3 Feb 94 03:25:05 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA19581; Thu, 3 Feb 94 04:24:45 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 4:24:54 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 4:24:35 EST From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Sorcery, Re: Recent comments Date: Wed, 02 Feb 1994 12:11:36 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: <1EAF9AF24E3@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Graeme Lindsell: > Replying to David Cake replying to Oliver Jovanovic > One question for those who have the draft: exactly how skill based is it? > I've heard about the Maintain skill, so there is at least one more > manipulation, but is it still one spell = one skill? Good question. To continue it: do related spells have to be paid for full? I.e. a does character who knows form/set bronze, form/set and animate wood have to spend the same amount of time to learn animate bronze as Joe newcomer? > The reason I ask is that in RQ3 it was significantly harder to become > a sorcerer than the other magicians. You basically had to design a sorcerer > from day one, whilst you could become a priest or runelord (or to a > lesser extent a shaman) during play. The basic problem was the need to learn > a _lot_ of skills: if you wanted to be able to cast them without 20 > minutes of Cereony then it was even harder, as you have to learn a lot of > skills and then train them to a high level. The advantage to trying to do > this was that a powerful sorcerer was the most effective magician, at least > on the mundane plane. My only attempt at running a sorcery-user myself under RQ3 (I'm cursed to be the eternal GM) was a soldier (5 years)/apprentice sorcerer (5 years) who proved to be quite successful and effective, but a long way from abusively so. More powerful spells just took a lot of time to be cast reliably. So what? The real problem was that two point spells and 8 point spells (my free INT then, having neither familiar nor bound INT spirits) had exactly the same difficulty, and took the same amount of extra time for ceremony. Casting time is more than a small problem for spell-slingers in stress situations, and works effectively as a limit to overly powerful spells. By making long-lasting spells need *large* amounts of time which fellow characters use for training etc. gives an incentive to sorcery-users to abstain from abusing this option. I'd say a month-long spell warrants at least one day in preparation, a year-long spell a week, etc. > Now most of the advantages of being a sorcerer (very long duration and > range spells) have gone, but it has been made more difficult to become > at all effective, since manipulation is based on skill (a change I applaud > BTW). If the number of skills that need to be learned hasn't been reduced, > or the sorcery spells made more effective than those in the RQ draft 1.0, > then I can see no reason for players to want to become sorcerers, and I > doubt sorcery would last as a technique against Divine and Spirit magic. Range in fact never was a problem on the powerful side. The basic range of piddly 10 metres made most combat uses of sorcery dependant on the Range skill. To reach approx. spirit spell range, one had to spend 2 to 3 extra MP per try, which severely hampers the POW 14 character. >> Sorcery is potentially soul-destroying - but so are divine and spirit magic, >> they just won't admit it. Just ask the Malkioni -'No, sorcery is the only > Especially DI's: they can destroy souls faster than any Tap spell or > vampire. I always liked C.J. Cherryh's quote for Ischade in Thieves World where she accuses Molin Torchholder: "You think you are better than us just because you sell your soul in one piece, while we sell ours piecemeal?" I think this is how sorcery works, if not properly guided by a greater force - on Glorantha either the Invsible God, or Eastern philosophy. Just like Illumination has its dark side, this self-reliant magic has its dark sides, such as God Learnerish or Arkat-like behaviour. >>> Sorcery in Glorantha does not consist of sorcerers, >>> even master sorcerers, that can maintain dozens of small spells, or >>> easily cast spells at great ranges, and the mechanics intentionally >>> reflect this. > Well if they aren't made significantly more effective, either by having > better spells or less skills (say the skill Tap to tap any stat, or Enhance > to replace the various Enhance (Characteristic) spells), then I doubt that > there would be any Sorcery in Glorantha. If coupled with some knowledge of the target condition (in your example characteristic) only. (Although the fairly common Tap INT would be coupled to the extremely uncomon Increase INT). This works better for the , or variations of certain spells. And it would be what I expected from RQ3 sorcery way back when I bought it. >> Sorry, but this is one thing about RQ4/AIG that I just hate - the >> desire to completely remove the extended range/duration as a viable option. >> (and I am sorry, but permanent POW for very dull and difficult 1-use effects >> is not a viable option) > Total agreement here! Limited agreement from my side. I repeat myself, but for Mostali the stabilize spells are perfectly valid, e.g. because they get an automatic annual POW increase for behaving as part of the machine (by casting their stabilize spell). This could work for human sorcerers as well. If the POW expenditure is kept, the sorcerer certainly ought to become trained in spending and *regaining* POW, as would anyone making enchantments. So: *If* by spending POW there is a near certainty of regaining POW within reasonable time (e.g. one Gloranthan season) in addition to normal POW gain, these rules make more than sense to me. Only this would make long-lasting spells a bit more attractive, again, and the original problem still hangs on. The above proposed option of seriously increased casting time might limit that, though. -- 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 AA00193; Wed, 2 Feb 94 05:55:39 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA02045; Wed, 2 Feb 94 06:55:10 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 6:55:16 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 6:54:56 EST From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: game size Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 03:54:04 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: <1D57AAB1794@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Here is a suggestion I would like to throw into the pot and see whether it gets cooked ... Currently the planned release appears to be too fat, hence possibly too expensive for the casual buyer. And if the casual buyer did buy he/she might be so frustrated by either the numerous references to out of print, rare or expensive material or by the complexity of it all. Having experienced role players recommend a product is good but if only experienced role players can actually play the game then the publishers are in trouble. Since RQ1 and RQ2 has been published the variety provided by the gaming market has exploded. Everything to the the complexity and excellence of Champions to the simplicity and elegance of FUDGE. This is I am thinking that maybe the material in RQ:AiG might be better broken down into a number of volumes aimed at differing markets. Here are the books I would propose, with titles that are choosen purely to suggest their contents: Basic Roleplaying: Fantasy Adventures Anywhere. Support the generic market, provide the core rules. RuneQuest: Adventures in Dragon Pass. Provide the rules and background to adaquately cover Dragon Pass. RuneQuest: Design your own Glorantha. To be used with either of the above books. Extend Gorathana, rewrite parts or create your own. For RuneQuest has two advantages. The simplicity and adaptability of Basic Roleplaying and the excellent concepts behind the Gloranthan setting. Prehaps these advantages warrant more targeted marketing. Glorantha is a two edge sword in some ways. For although it is an excellent setting too much has been defined. Unless a game master new to this world is encouraged to write his own Gloranthan material the task of collecting all the material you need would be awesome. By the way how many cows is RQ:AiG, in its current form, envisaged to cost when it reaches the shelves? Regards -- Guy Robinson --  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA00816; Wed, 2 Feb 94 06:26:36 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA05939; Wed, 2 Feb 94 07:26:27 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 7:26:33 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 7:26:16 EST From: zca41122@rpool1.rus.uni-stuttgart.de (Ralf Wagner) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: unsubsribe RQ playtest discussion Ralf Wagner Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 13:25:33 +0100 (MEZ) 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: <1D6005C3D76@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> unsubscribe RQ playtest discussion Thanx Ralf Wagner  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA01963; Wed, 2 Feb 94 06:47:50 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA06337; Wed, 2 Feb 94 07:47:36 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 7:47:40 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 7:47:22 EST From: Malcolm Cohen To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: re: game size Date: Wed, 2 Feb 94 12:46:02 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: <1D65A78394D@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> I have not seen RQ:AiG so take the following with a kg of salt... David Dunham wrote: > I could argue that the 120 page RQ2 was more popular than the 280 page RQ3... 1. In the UK, that was initially because of the ridiculous pricing strategy. 2. The world has moved on since then. RQ2 would not, IMO, sell all that well if it were being introduced for the first time right now. > Maybe I'm wrong, but _I'm_ put off by huge works, and I'm a fairly > dedicated gamer. Would you become a gamer if you thought you had to read a > 300 page tome? If you weren't a gamer, would you be more interested in > becoming one if you had to buy a $15 book or a $30 book? I would be (and am) more put off by having to buy endless supplements just to get the core system. > One idea would be to yank Sorcery and put it in a Western sourcebook > (problem: the rest of that sourcebook probably isn't ready). No, (IMO) sorcery has to be done right and done in the core rulebook. Having introduced the third magic system in RQ3 (even though perhaps badly), it must be fully supported (and fixed!) in RQ4. The customers expect it. > The detailed shaman rules could go in a Prax sourcebook (again, such a work > may not be ready for publication within a month or two of RQ:AiG). I understand that the shaman rules are incomplete anyway; if they are not complete enough to run a shaman for an extended period of time then I agree that they should be separated out. > All optional combat rules could go into a "Gods of War" supplement, which > detailed Humakt, Yanafal Tarnils, Wachaza, etc. I do not like this idea much. IMO even optional rules should appear in the core system or not at all (if the optional rules are taking up too much space, they should be looked at by a very critical eye with a view to removing the ones that do not improve the game markedly). IMO the only rules which can reasonably appear in supplements are the ones which add a whole new dimension to the game; e.g. another magic system, an alchemy system, ... not ones which tweak the base ruleset. > Oliver implied that while the supplement route wouldn't cost the gamer that > much, it would be a lot more work, and thus wouldn't happen. If it would be a lot more work then it WILL cost; if not in money (to pay off the folk who spend all that time working) then in delays to products. -- ...........................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 AA10310; Wed, 2 Feb 94 09:25:47 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA15664; Wed, 2 Feb 94 10:25:00 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 10:25:35 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 10:24:43 EST From: Kiliki To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: re: game size & price Date: Wed, 2 Feb 94 10:11:27 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: <1D8F9EC0021@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> -> -> John Medway replied to me: -> >I dunno if this is a real problem. Look at the size of Champions or the -> >new version of GURPS. They're pretty sizeable too. Doesn't seem to slow -> >sales too much. -> -> I could argue that the 120 page RQ2 was more popular than the 280 page RQ3... -> -> Maybe I'm wrong, but _I'm_ put off by huge works, and I'm a fairly -> dedicated gamer. Would you become a gamer if you thought you had to read a -> 300 page tome? If you weren't a gamer, would you be more interested in -> becoming one if you had to buy a $15 book or a $30 book? -> -> I seem to be the only person bothered by this, but then, if you subscribe -> to this list, you're probably a pretty hard-core fan. Does anyone know if -> Avalon Hill has done any market research on this? -> -> The problem is, RQ:AiG is fairly well done, and it's hard to know what to -> cut (I've seen many places that editing could tighten up the prose and save -> some words, but that's a minimal savings). I've only seen requests to put -> more stuff in. There's more stuff _I'd_ like to see in the product, but it -> might be far better to put it in a supplement. -> -> One idea would be to yank Sorcery and put it in a Western sourcebook -> (problem: the rest of that sourcebook probably isn't ready). -> -> The detailed shaman rules could go in a Prax sourcebook (again, such a work -> may not be ready for publication within a month or two of RQ:AiG). -> -> All optional combat rules could go into a "Gods of War" supplement, which -> detailed Humakt, Yanafal Tarnils, Wachaza, etc. -> -> Oliver implied that while the supplement route wouldn't cost the gamer that -> much, it would be a lot more work, and thus wouldn't happen. -> -> -> -- | Chris Cooke - cookec@mmlab.UUCP cookec@mml.mmc.com | | Sometimes you're the windshield, sometimes you're the bug... |  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA13990; Wed, 2 Feb 94 09:55:40 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA18064; Wed, 2 Feb 94 10:54:40 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 10:55:35 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 10:54:15 EST From: Kiliki To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: re: game size & cost Date: Wed, 2 Feb 94 10:52:00 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: <1D977E70E5D@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> -> Maybe I'm wrong, but _I'm_ put off by huge works, and I'm a fairly -> dedicated gamer. Would you become a gamer if you thought you had to read a -> 300 page tome? If you weren't a gamer, would you be more interested in -> becoming one if you had to buy a $15 book or a $30 book? As some of you recall, I started a new RQ3 campaign about 6 months ago. My ave game runs about 8-10 people( I prefer 6-8 but have run as many as 12). Only 2 of my players had previous RQ experience(I didn't). We have now spawned a second RQ3 campaign(with 5 players) starting for the 1st time this saturday. So far, 4 purchased the "Deluxe Boxed Set" and 1 "New Bound Deluxe Book". I know of 5 more definite(including a 2nd for myself) and 2 more "maybes". My point? The market is there, all it takes is a successful campaign! Yes, my players and I wish the price was lower BUT it hasn't stopped sales... Speaking of which, is there any SoloQuest material? Maybe issuing material of that nature would help with new sales? Can anyone offer suggestions on how to acquire SoloQuest I & II? -- | Chris Cooke - cookec@mmlab.UUCP cookec@mml.mmc.com | | Pinfeather Blandrake - Shaman of Ducka Fowl, Duck Point |  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA17737; Wed, 2 Feb 94 10:42:00 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA22011; Wed, 2 Feb 94 11:41:38 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 11:41:50 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 11:41:06 EST From: "Loren J. Miller" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Ad copy Date: 02 Feb 1994 11:40:34 -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 X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1DA3FD7567C@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Here's how I'd reword your copy. RuneQuest: Adventures in Glorantha A game of epic roleplaying Glorantha is back! One of the first and most complete fantasy roleplaying game worlds has been updated and expanded for today's roleplaying audience. In Dragon Pass slumber dragons and giants that are so huge they are mistaken for mountains and hills. Foul broos and hungry trolls skulk through the hills, hunting farmers on their steads, and in Boldhome rebels plan bold strokes against the encroaching Empire. - Walk through a land of myth, armed and armored with the bones of the gods. - Search out arcane, ancient magics - Probe forbidden secrets - Bring Lunar civilization to the savage Orlanthi hill tribes or save your people from the decadent, chaos-embracing Lunar Empire. In 1978, the first edition of RuneQuest set the standard for roleplaying games that would follow. With the world of Glorantha, RuneQuest brought roleplayers out of the dungeon and into an entire world brimming with adventure, romance, tragedy, and slapstick comedy. This new edition of RuneQuest continues the evolution of the game system, making it even easier to use Glorantha as a roleplaying setting and remaining consistent with the previous rules so that if you have old RuneQuest materials you can continue to use them with this new edition of the rules. If you have already been introduced to RuneQuest and Glorantha, this new edition will bring you to a new level of understanding. If you have never seen Glorantha, then within these pages you will discover a rich, satisfying setting with terrifying monsters, cruel enemies, generous friends, and the greatest scenery in the universe. Adventures in Glorantha is the perfect introduction to roleplaying. It tells you what a fantasy roleplaying game is, how to create an adventurer, and provides you with the detailed mechanics and comprehensive background material needed to begin play in the magical world of Glorantha, which Greg Stafford began to write about in 1965. The game provides everything you need to begin your adventures in Glorantha with this game of epic storytelling. For the advanced player, Adventures in Glorantha provides innovative rules and comprehensive background material, and the best developed game world in existence, Glorantha, a world in which creation has not stopped. It allows you enter a world unlike any other, where you can learn the inner mysteries of the gods and venture on unexplored paths of mythic reality. Glorantha is a world of magic and magicians, where anyone can learn to use magic. You can call on the gods to become their avatar to defeat your foes... but Divine Intervention has a high price. Crisis is at hand - it is the time of the Hero Wars, where the forces of the Lunar Empire will confront an uneasy alliance of foes. Benevolent missionaries, well meaning officials, homesick soldiers... these are the Lunar invaders. Barbaric warriors, savage beast riders, dangerous rebels...these are the Orlanthi tribes defending their homes. Your character can help decide who wins and what is the future course of the world. And I like this one of the ones that didn't make it. > Worship a hundred different gods of death... 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 AA23087; Wed, 2 Feb 94 11:30:18 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25430; Wed, 2 Feb 94 12:29:33 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 12:30:10 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 12:29:19 EST From: bradfurst@aol.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: iconoclasm Date: Wed, 02 Feb 94 12:34:36 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: <1DB0D675DFE@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> from Brad Furst Newton from UC442196@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu Sun Jan 30 23:32:45 1994 notes "I bet you've changed move rates to fit the 6 sec. round; why change the move rates and not the rates of fire? What was so wrong about the RQ3 12 sec. round that made you decide to scrap it and use this strange 6 sec. (approx.) thing? (If this has already been thoroughly fought out, I don't want to dredge up old boring stuff from last year; I am curious as to the reasons for the change, though.)" Oliver From JOVANOVIC@CUCCFA.CCC.COLUMBIA.EDU replies "One of RQIII's big problems is that you can cover 30 meters in the time it takes to exchange a single set of blows, which leads to a number of problems." What problems? Please specify. A heavywight boxing match has fewer telling blows in its 3-minute round than RQ in five rounds. I expect your own experience in martial arts shows such also. Peter Maranci inquires "About the function of this playtest list: should we note when we agree with a point that we see? Is volume of agreement something Oliver and Co. need to know? I've seen a number of points I've agreed with, and in fact some points I wanted to make have already been made by someone else. Should I register my opinion anyway? Maybe some sort of simplified Yes/No endorsement system using the subject lines only should be used." I myself would indeed choose to see that affirmative endorsements are registered here. I will do so (see here). Peter then declares "I much preferred the old version of Shimmer. No, that's not strong enough -- I REALLY preferred the old -5%/point Shimmer, and so does everyone I know." And DDunham@radiomail.net at first agrees "I think most of our gaming group does too. However, one pointed out that the current spell does mean that the attacker can just roll normally, without having to worry about the defender's spells, which is a useful speedup/ simplification. I have always been annoyed at the RQ2 "Defense" and the subtractive Shimmer. I want attack rolls to be straight- forward and arithmetic-scarce. I much prefer the newer Shimmer. Let's (for me) call the old spell "Defense" since its parameters match the Defense of RQ2. SHIMMER (Variable, Ranged, Passive) This spell blurs and distorts the target's visual image making it easier for them to evade a foe's attacks. Each point adds 10 percentiles to the target's Dodge skill and 5 percentiles to the target's parry skills. David Dunham coreectly shows the "Bottom line: ducks would be nice, but there's no space. You all disagree on my prioritization. But if I'm right and adding more and more worthy stuff makes RQ:AiG LESS good, what would you cut to allow ducks to fit?" Indeed, let us each declare our own priorities. I would start by cutting back on anything that can be obtained from *any* other RQ3 source than the _Deluxe_Edition_ (for example, magic items that can be found in _Elder_Secrets_). Occasional redundant reiterations for clarification or completion *must* be weighed against that which cannot be obtained elsewhere, like Ducks (I know there is a tiny bit in E.S. but ducks are not listed in the table of contents of E.S.) Michael Schwartz c/o tfalk@sils.umich.edu notes that "Aldryami and Mostali are very inhuman species in RQ...not very enjoyable to play except when the entire campaign is based around the particular culture, or the PCs are outcasts.... and David Cheng requests "So, find some room for the Ducks. I could make an argument for cutting Aldryami or Mostali, as both these races have less interaction with humans on a day-to-day basis. But I don't think it will come to that." Note that Aldryami and Mostali have more than enough (except good art) in _Elder_Secrets_. Speaking of ducks, I wonder if duck-lovers have obtained *RQ Adventures Fanzine* from grendel@sfsuvax1.sfsu.edu Put up or shut up. I agree with ddunham@radiomail.net "I don't see Mastakos, Gagarth, Polestar as important cults; put it on the "remove due to space limits" list. None of them can be played with this volume anyway (since they provide rune magic not in this work)." And again I agree with ddunham@radiomail.net "And the 1.5* damage is confusing.... I much like "It might be simpler to allow two rolls for damage, pick the highest." JM is quoted: Even *advanced* societies of antiquity, with coin and currency systems, conducted the bulk of trade, especially on a lower level, with barter. This is the way the people would think, buy and sell. This is very misleading. Advanced societies of antiquity traded commodities "in kind" but fixed the values according to weight (often precious metal). Most of the extant documents of Egyptians or Babylonians or whoever simply record endless lists of agreements of Merchant-A, who will give up (for example) grain valued at 3 shekels, and Merchant-B, who will give (for example) cloth valued at 2 shekels and papyrus valued at 1 shekel. Perhaps Joerg Baumgartner is an iconoclast like me. He reminded us "Don't fix what ain't broken!" Paul Reilly responded (about dice rolling, but appropriate generally) "There's nothing wrong with your proposed way, except that thousands (I hope) of RuneQuesters are used to doing it another way.... Same argument can be made elsewhere - there is a certain cost in changing anything over, and the new way should be a distinct improvement, in some sense, if it is to replace the old way. RQ3 fatigue needed to be fixed. RQ3 sorcery need to be fixed. Much of the other stuff after that, maybe we could leave well enough alone. Time and movement was okay with me in RQ3; AP and ENC was okay with in RQ3; six kilograms per SIZ was okay with me. from BradFurst@aol.com  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA01052; Wed, 2 Feb 94 18:02:17 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA28673; Wed, 2 Feb 94 13:12:22 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 13:12:31 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 13:12:02 EST From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Skill vs skill, and more heresy Date: Wed, 2 Feb 94 13:11:50 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: <1DBC3C6185D@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Paul Reilly replyin to Dave Cake: > Actually I prefer, as a slightly more complex rules (but one which >Pendragon finds the need for as well) the rule 'best level of sucess wins, >other wise lowest roll' ie 03 beats 05 - unless 05 is a critical and 03 is only >a special. Or 40 beats 70 - unless 40 is a failure and 70 is a sucess. > I like this more than the RQ4 maneouver style contest of sucess level, >which results in stalemate more than half the time. Today I find myself (unusually) disagreeing with Dave Cake. The 'lowest roll wins' method is bad for the following reason: the less skilled person usually wins if she succeeds at all. This is just wrong. A 90% master potter should almost always make a better pot than her 30% apprentice, EVEN IF THE LATTER SUCCEEDS. I can do a detailed probability breakdown if anyone is interested. _ paul reilly  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA28829; Wed, 2 Feb 94 12:20:33 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA29389; Wed, 2 Feb 94 13:20:15 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 13:20:22 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 13:20:00 EST From: jjm@zycor.lgc.com (johnjmedway) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Ad copy Date: Wed, 2 Feb 94 12:17:41 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: <1DBE5BB2781@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >> From: JOVANOVIC@cuccfa.ccc.columbia.edu >> Subject: Ad copy >> Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 3:54:36 -0500 (EST) >> >> Worship a hundred different gods of death... Yeah, that's a great one alright. That'd *really* turn parents on. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 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 AA28659; Wed, 2 Feb 94 12:18:18 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA29081; Wed, 2 Feb 94 13:18:04 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 13:18:15 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 13:18:00 EST From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Sorcery Range Date: Wed, 2 Feb 94 13:17:48 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: <1DBDD345D72@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Paul Reilly here. Our group never found much of a problem with long-range sorcery - once we moved to Sympathetic Targetting for long-range spells (and took away the incredibly crocked 'cast through a Sense Projection as if you were there' rule.) How has long range been a problem? How did the spells get targetted at long range? - Paul  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA29366; Wed, 2 Feb 94 12:27:48 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA29884; Wed, 2 Feb 94 13:27:19 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 13:27:27 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 13:27:16 EST From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: re: game size Date: Wed, 2 Feb 94 13:27:07 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: <1DC04C8254F@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >One idea would be to yank Sorcery and put it in a Western sourcebook >(problem: the rest of that sourcebook probably isn't ready). I'd actually favor this. I'd rather have a combined book with the basic Sorcery Rules and a "Sects of Malkion" section (like Cults of Prax). This would be better for several reasons: 1. _Most_ characters don't use much sorcery, even in the West. Very few in Dragon Pass. Thus having an extra section in the rulebook that _everybody_ buys seems wrong to me - it's forcing players in campaigns with no sorcerers to buy rules they don't need. 2. Sorcery should be _mysterious_ and _alien_ to most central Genertelan characters. This is a lot easier if they haven't read the Sorcery rules. Even in a Western campaign, certain schools should _not_ have all their powers well-known. Galvosti, for example. 3. It gives us more time to playtest, and me more time to push our version of Sorcery :-) (This is really a serious post, despite the joke at the end.) - Paul Reilly  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA13754; Tue, 1 Feb 94 20:39:16 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA17194; Tue, 1 Feb 94 21:39:03 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 1 Feb 94 21:39:13 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 1 Feb 94 21:38:47 EST From: graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Two Checks?? Date: Wed, 2 Feb 94 13:37:33 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: <1CC356B38F9@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > > I agree with David Dunham. The revised mechanism proposed for skill > increase by Oliver is still horribly clunky. I would prefer the 1D3/1D6/2D6 > gain for Hard/Medium/Easy skills, and am not too bothered by the average 7% > gain in an Easy skill. RQ2 had a fixed 5% gain -- not too different. OJ's As one of the people who objected to the 1d3/1d6/2d6 idea in the first draft I'd better speak up. My main worry was that Easy skills with 2d6 would seriously unbalance the progression of characters to rune lord level: those cults with Easy skills needed for rune level would have a lot more rune levels than those with a lot of Hard skills. I know this isn't a big problem for people like Nick who play characters around the 40%-60% skill level, but it'd be a problem in high power campaigns. I quite like the best of 2d6/worst of 2d6 system you propose though: the difference isn't nearly so extreme, and I prefer it to needing multiple check boxes. > End of story: all skills should get checks when used under stress (checks > awarded at the GM's discretion, *irrespective* of success or failure), or > when used for protracted periods (e.g. Ride, Speak Other, Crafts, etc.). Agreed. > The skill gain per successful check depends on the ease of the skill. Another option is to make it harder to get a successful increase from a check for a hard skill ie add 20% to you skill for a hard skill, subtract 20% for an easy skill for the purposes of making the check. All increases would be the same, just easy skills would increase more often. > Nick 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 AA06790; Wed, 2 Feb 94 19:31:37 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01593; Wed, 2 Feb 94 13:46:29 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 13:46:39 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 13:46:05 EST From: Raymond D Turney To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Ad copy Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 10:45:53 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1DC551205A6@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> That's more ad copy than I care to read.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA03527; Wed, 2 Feb 94 13:06:42 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA03246; Wed, 2 Feb 94 14:06:27 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 14:06:39 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 14:06:14 EST From: Raymond D Turney To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: re: game size & price Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 11:06:06 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1DCAB0243EF@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> What to cut: Hold in the sorcery section. Reason, it is not used by any of the listed traditions. All optional combat rules. Reason: While I like them they are most useful to combat between high level types. Publish them in Tales of the Reaching Moon and if RQ IV sells, they can be printed with something else. Aging an Inaction Reason: I do not recall any serious problem with inactive adventurers. If there is, the GM can handle it on his own. Most of the Guidelines on DI Reason, they can be replaced by the much vaguer and shorter RQ II guidelines with little loss of playability. The loss of permanent POW means that DI abuse, unlike other things tends to be self limiting. The Array of Chaos Reason: this is most used by GM's and is being covered inch by inch in the scenario packs anyway. The World of Glorontha Reason: Not only is this info availiable in the support title of the same name, it is not worth much without a map.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA01076; Wed, 2 Feb 94 22:16:31 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA04360; Wed, 2 Feb 94 14:19:10 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 14:19:21 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 14:18:18 EST From: Raymond D Turney To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: re: game size Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 11:14:56 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1DCDE794C81@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> A workable sorcery system is in fact what a lot of us out here are waiting for and expecting from RQ IV. Cut all of shamanism first & if necessay the beginning and ending Gloronthan background chapters first. My reasons: Sorcery is what people are waiting for. Though the new shaman rules look good, I have not heard anything like as much demand for improved shaman rules {though it is a good idea}. The Glorontha stuff, though useful and important for new players is not much good without a map and has already appeared in World of Glorontha  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA05921; Tue, 1 Feb 94 22:10:00 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA21339; Tue, 1 Feb 94 23:09:49 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 1 Feb 94 23:09:56 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 1 Feb 94 23:09:42 EST From: Tim Leask To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Skill vs skill, and more heresy Date: Wed, 2 Feb 94 15:09:22 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: <1CDB9485A81@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David Cake writes: > > Can I just say that I like the proposed new mechanic, and I think that > it is very clever, and PLEASE DO NOT USE IT. > RQ needs some consistency. Please, just lets stick with > ' lower is better' , which we all know and understand, and which, > more importantly, is already the way RQ (and published stuff which we need to > maintain compatibilty with) does it. Not that I care that much which system is used I just like to point out a couple of things. Published material is unaffected to any great extent, stats are more or less unchanged from existing works - other proposed changes have far more compatibility problems (e.g. alterations to armor values, damage bonuses, weapon damage, fatigue , hit locations etc). I don't really think it is that a big a change to the game system, after one session people would pretty much have the hang of it (IMHO). All we are talking about here is how to interpret a dice roll for goodness sake. Even with the existing system it's not immediately obvious if you have fumbled or rolled special or critical without consulting a table, especially considering the frequency with which rolls are modified for some reason or other. > I don't wish to appear a whining conservative (well, those of you who > followed my input know that I am not at all), but on this particular issue I > feel that it very definately should come down to conservatism - the marginal > gain is very small, and it is a very big change to the game system (even if > it looks similar probability wise, it will not go down well with a largely > conservative RQ2 audience that we are trying hard to win back). RQ4 should > appear to be a simple and natural transition. You mean that RQ4 is targeted primarily at the existing RQ2 audience ? Well if nothing of signficance changes from RQ2 to RQ4 (ignore RQ3) what makes you think they would bother to buy it ? I thought the idea was to produce something that was a significant improvement over RQ2, and that at the same time would appeal to the majority of the RQ audience whilst maintaining as much compatibility with published material as possible ( and with some luck attracting new players to RQ). Someone also made the (excellent) point that if it ain't broke don't fix it, the problem is not everyone agrees on what is broken. Some people consider the current RQ combat system too slow to resolve combat, while others seem to enjoy an entire evening spent on one combat. I can appreciate both points of view. In my undergrad years when I had plenty of time on my hands to play RQ long combats were fine - now that my playing time is greatly reduced long combats can be very annoying, especially if they don't advance the plot. Changes to the combat system which retain the %skills as there basis have almost zero compatibility problems with published material - since the basic mechanics are described only in the rule books - which RQ4 would replace. I'm not saying that the Miller/O'Reilly system is perfect or necessarily the way to go - but at least we should think about alternatives. enough of my prattling Tim Leask ================================================================================ Department of Computer Science /*\__/\ "Money is something you have in University of Melbourne < \ case you don't die tomorrow." Parkville, Vic., 3052, AUSTRALIA \ _ _/ Gordon Gecko. Phone: +61 3 282 2439 \| -- e-mail: tsl@cs.mu.oz.au ================================================================================  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA10203; Wed, 2 Feb 94 14:20:40 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA09838; Wed, 2 Feb 94 15:20:27 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 15:20:36 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 15:19:47 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Two Checks?? Date: Wed, 02 Feb 1994 12:19:38 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: <1DDE4E21844@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >> 1) How many cults, especially those that PCs favor, have Easy skills >> required for Rune Lord status? > > Those who have 2 handed spear as a skill, that's who. (At least it >was easy in the 2.0 draft) Easy Attack: Crossbow, Knife, Throw, and Tools. Hard: Atlatl (and off-hand attack) Easy Parry: Shield Parry; Hard: 1hAxe, 1hFlail, 1hHammer, 1hMace.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA08606; Tue, 1 Feb 94 22:55:01 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA22804; Tue, 1 Feb 94 23:54:49 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 1 Feb 94 23:54:57 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 1 Feb 94 23:54:43 EST From: graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Recent comments Date: Wed, 2 Feb 94 15:53:47 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: <1CE79734B1A@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Replying to David Cake replying to Oliver Jovanovic > [RQ:AiG is driven by the need for a ] > > viable alternative system of Gloranthan magic that can compete with, > > but is different from divine and spirit magic. The characteristics > > of Gloranthan sorcery are that it is skill based, and potentially > > soul destroying. > I agree with the skill based bit, but where does the soul-destroying > bit come from? I think that you hve been listening to priestly propaganda. One question for those who have the draft: exactly how skill based is it? I've heard about the Maintain skill, so there is at least one more manipulation, but is it still one spell = one skill? The reason I ask is that in RQ3 it was significantly harder to become a sorcerer than the other magicians. You basically had to design a sorcerer from day one, whilst you could become a priest or runelord (or to a lesser extent a shaman) during play. The basic problem was the need to learn a _lot_ of skills: if you wanted to be able to cast them without 20 minutes of Cereony then it was even harder, as you have to learn a lot of skills and then train them to a high level. The advantage to trying to do this was that a powerful sorcerer was the most effective magician, at least on the mundane plane. Now most of the advantages of being a sorcerer (very long duration and range spells) have gone, but it has been made more difficult to become at all effective, since manipulation is based on skill (a change I applaud BTW). If the number of skills that need to be learned hasn't been reduced, or the sorcery spells made more effective than those in the RQ draft 1.0, then I can see no reason for players to want to become sorcerers, and I doubt sorcery would last as a technique against Divine and Spirit magic. > Sorcery is potentially soul-destroying - but so are divine and spirit magic, > they just won't admit it. Just ask the Malkioni -'No, sorcery is the only Especially DI's: they can destroy souls faster than any Tap spell or vampire. > Sorcery in Glorantha does not consist of sorcerers, > > even master sorcerers, that can maintain dozens of small spells, or > > easily cast spells at great ranges, and the mechanics intentionally > > reflect this. Well if they aren't made significantly more effective, either by having better spells or less skills (say the skill Tap to tap any stat, or Enhance to replace the various Enhance (Characteristic) spells), then I doubt that there would be any Sorcery in Glorantha. > Sorry, but this is one thing about RQ4/AIG that I just hate - the > desire to completely remove the extended range/duration as a viable option. > (and I am sorry, but permanent POW for very dull and difficult 1-use effects > is not a viable option) Total agreement here! 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 AA24037; Wed, 2 Feb 94 02:52:59 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA22962; Tue, 1 Feb 94 23:58:42 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 1 Feb 94 23:58:47 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 1 Feb 94 23:58:33 EST From: graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Two Checks?? Date: Wed, 2 Feb 94 15:57:21 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: <1CE89C61292@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David Cheng replies: > 1) How many cults, especially those that PCs favor, have Easy skills > required for Rune Lord status? Those who have 2 handed spear as a skill, that's who. (At least it was easy in the 2.0 draft) > > 2) I think this puts the cart before the horse. The focus for making > Rune Lord should not be a binary checkoff of five skill > percentages. Let's keep the good skill advancement rule, and > rewrite the way we recognize cult RuneMasters. > Oh, I agree! But if we retain the old rune lord system, then the new skill difficulties will make it much easier to minimax 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 AA14436; Wed, 2 Feb 94 15:01:31 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA13722; Wed, 2 Feb 94 16:01:17 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 16:01:28 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 16:00:54 EST From: jjm@zycor.lgc.com (johnjmedway) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: re: game size Date: Wed, 2 Feb 94 14:58:41 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: <1DE945E3616@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >> From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) >> Subject: re: game size >> Date: Wed, 2 Feb 94 13:27:07 EST >> >> >One idea would be to yank Sorcery and put it in a Western sourcebook >> >(problem: the rest of that sourcebook probably isn't ready). >> >> I'd actually favor this. I'd rather have a combined book with the >> basic Sorcery Rules and a "Sects of Malkion" section (like Cults of Prax). >> This would be better for several reasons: All of which seem perfectly valid to me. When RAG presents Divine Magic, it has a social context. Ditto for Shamanism. Not so for Sorcery. It would be nice to have for Carmanians and others who are outside the target area of the game ( Dragon Pass ), but it would be better to give Sorcery more space, and a background appropriate for it. We can also slip out the Mostali, since their magic won't be explained, and add in the Ducks, while we're at it. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 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 AA15003; Wed, 2 Feb 94 15:06:30 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA14160; Wed, 2 Feb 94 16:06:15 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 16:06:20 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 16:06:02 EST From: jjm@zycor.lgc.com (johnjmedway) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: re: game size & price Date: Wed, 2 Feb 94 15:03:47 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: <1DEAA4322ED@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >> From: Raymond D Turney >> Subject: re: game size & price >> Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 11:06:06 -0800 >> The World of Glorontha >> Reason: Not only is this info availiable in the support title of the same >> name, it is not worth much without a map. That's against the focus of this new version. we want something new people can pick up and play without other supplements. *Then* they'll buy the other supplements. I would definitely agree about needing a map, but I assume there will be one. A quality color one like in Sun County, though not on the inside cover, would be wonderful. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 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 AA15912; Wed, 2 Feb 94 15:18:33 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA14936; Wed, 2 Feb 94 16:18:18 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 16:18:29 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 16:18:05 EST From: akuma@netcom.com (Steven E Barnes) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: re: game size Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 13:18:37 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1DEDDB84EA6@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >>One idea would be to yank Sorcery and put it in a Western sourcebook >>(problem: the rest of that sourcebook probably isn't ready). Let me cast my vote against this. > I'd actually favor this. I'd rather have a combined book with the >basic Sorcery Rules and a "Sects of Malkion" section (like Cults of Prax). >This would be better for several reasons: > >1. _Most_ characters don't use much sorcery, even in the West. Very few >in Dragon Pass. Thus having an extra section in the rulebook that _everybody_ >buys seems wrong to me - it's forcing players in campaigns with no sorcerers >to buy rules they don't need. Not all GMs want to run Orlanthi in Dragon Pass. Besides, it gives those Lunars, traditionally cast as bad-guys, an extra edge. For me, Sorcery was one of the reasons why I bought RQ3. Of course, after reading the rules, my friends and I had some good laughs, and put the game into storage. It is very important to me that RQ have a published, working set of Sorcery rules. I for one, will probably never use Shaman, but I'm glad they are in the rulebook, in case I change my mind. >2. Sorcery should be _mysterious_ and _alien_ to most central Genertelan >characters. This is a lot easier if they haven't read the Sorcery rules. >Even in a Western campaign, certain schools should _not_ have all their >powers well-known. Galvosti, for example. This issue won't be solved by having separate suppliments, as the players can just get their hands on "The Compleate Sorceror", or "Western Pack" and read it themselves. -steve  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA04686; Wed, 2 Feb 94 23:18:32 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA15334; Wed, 2 Feb 94 16:23:45 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 16:23:53 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 16:23:35 EST From: bradfurst@aol.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: iconoclasm, cows, runeLords Date: Wed, 02 Feb 94 16:28:52 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: <1DEF50E5DF5@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> from Brad Furst Oliver mentioned this for ad copy: "It allows you enter a world unlike any other, where you can learn the inner mysteries of the gods and venture on unexplored paths of mythic reality." This is in the rules? I don't find it. "Benevolent missionaries, well meaning officials, homesick soldiers...these are the bad guys? Barbaric warriors, savage beast riders, dangerous rebels...these are the good guys?" I hope this heralds the end of Lunar bashing. "Forget realms best forgotten, run from the shadows, leave the masquerade behind...Glorantha's back." This seems to me to be rude to the other guys. But I instead like "Walk through a land of myth, armed and armored with the bones of the gods. Explore the ancient magics of the world of Glorantha. Probe the forbidden secrets of the God Learners. Bring the light of the Red Moon and the civilization of the Lunar Empire to the dark lands of the savage Orlanthi. Save your people from the decadent Lunar Empire, which embraces the worship of chaos and seeks to shackle your gods and people." paul@phyast.pitt.edu insisted "But cows were used _often_ as a value standard in the Bronze Age, at least from Ireland to India and down into Africa." Please cite references, especially compared to a single tool, weapon, meal, or article of clothing. Compare O. R. Gurney: _The_Hittites_: The medium of exchange in the Hittite kingdom, and indeed throughout the Near Eastern world of that time, was silver (or for small denominations lead) in bars or rings, and measured by weight...." (p.84). Dave Cake From davidc@cs.uwa.oz.au "Can I make an extremist suggestion here? I feel that a major goal of the RQ4 effort should be to absolutely minimize the number of supplements that need to be reissued.... I myself am already annoyed with compatibility issues with SC, RoC, SotB, and DLoD. The extra step of conversion of the scenarios is a big p.i.a. to me the referee. David Cheng suggests, and I agree Rune Lord should not be a binary checkoff of five skill percentages. Let's keep the good skill advancement rule, and rewrite the way we recognize cult RuneMasters. from BradFurst@aol.com  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA10008; Wed, 2 Feb 94 20:21:58 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA17135; Wed, 2 Feb 94 16:47:06 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 16:47:12 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 16:47:00 EST From: Brent Krupp To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Two Checks?? Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 13:46:47 -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: <1DF591930BA@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> I don't know that I like the two check method either, but even if it is used, no one should need to change the character sheets. Maybe this is a dumb and obvious suggestion, but just in case, here it is. Simply make a "hash-mark" or single line through the box when getting a check. Upon getting a second check, just make a mark the other way turning the line into an "x". Maybe for a third check one could just block in the box. Anyway, this is easier than squeezing all those extra check boxes onto the sheet. It is still easier to just not have multiple checks. 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 AA19426; Wed, 2 Feb 94 15:52:55 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA17767; Wed, 2 Feb 94 16:52:44 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 16:52:51 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 16:52:28 EST From: Neil Robinson To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: RQ:AiG : sorcery Date: Wed, 2 Feb 94 13:52:07 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: <1DF70643086@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Whew, I've finally gotten my a mail system up and running again. 400 messages to read since the RQCon. I guess it serves me right for not logging on while on holidays. I liked the rules, especially with the sorcery in them. Why? Well there are two markets the rules have to satisfy in order for it to be successful. 1. Appeal to the current RQ players. Many people like sorcery, and want to use it in their games. We run a campaign in Ralios and NEED to have sorcery. 2. Appeal to new players. For this we need to keep the rules centred and focuses on Dragon Pass. With a little compromise I think it can fulfill both objectives. And the playtesting for this version should really help it.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA27107; Thu, 3 Feb 94 07:29:36 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA22141; Wed, 2 Feb 94 17:53:53 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 17:54:00 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 17:48:17 EST From: klyfix@ace.com (Klyfix) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Broad Opinions Date: Wed, 2 Feb 94 17:04:53 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: <1E05E9B26A3@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Stuff I like: The Gloranthan background information is what should have been in RQ3; lots more interesting than the "Fantasy Europe" stuff. And we can now create decent Gloranthan characters without having to own two or three suppliments. The new version of the Familiar spell is a tremendous improvement. Adding a First Aid roll to the Heal roll when re-attaching limbs makes good sense. And the new version of Form Set (substance) is pretty decent; the old version lent itself to abuse by the creative. Stuff I'm not so fond of: Why is Shimmer now Parry/Dodge Sharp? The logic of the shimmering not affecting an archer's chance to hit you if you aren't aware he's there escapes me; sort of like camouflage that only works if you can see your opponent. Perhaps it could be changed to allow for a dodge under circumstances when it otherise would be impossible. I'm more accepting of the build system than I was initially, but I'm still against the notion of charging a background point for picking up a skill from another profession. A higher cost for picking up an outside skill at the same level as your profession might be okay, though. It seems odd to me that in the description of the Dragon Pass area, ducks are mysteriously absent... V.S.Greene | klyfix@ace.com | Boston Mass., sorta Celebrate Groundhog Day, eat pork sausage!  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA21792; Wed, 2 Feb 94 16:22:43 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA20004; Wed, 2 Feb 94 17:22:27 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 17:22:34 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 17:22:10 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Minimal RQ Date: Wed, 02 Feb 1994 14:21:58 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: <1DFEF2C1FF2@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Thanks everyone for giving the size of the game some serious consideration. I'm sure we won't come to agreement, but I hope we can show Oliver, Michael, and Carl that there's some alternatives to being a kitchen sink game. Remember, it's not which sections are bad, but which sections are less important to the core product that's going to introduce new people to RuneQuest and Glorantha. (Despite the typo in an earlier message, I'm not concerned about selling to the existing market. At least half the purchasers have to be new players so we double the number of RQ players. When you get right down to it, our opinions are meaningless since we're going to buy RQ:AiG anyway, whether it has sorcery or not.) The decision has been made to focus on Dragon Pass (and neighboring Prax). I don't think that's open for discussion. So rules for Malkioni magic aren't as appropriate as those for Orlanth worship. Obviously, it would be nice to have both, since sorcerers live nearby. And suggestions to remove Glorantha and make a generic version probably won't be listened to, either. I don't want people to have to buy supplements to get the core system. Like RQ2, we need a system that lets you adventure in the most adventerous and well documented parts of Glorantha. I also assume the final product will have both maps and illustrations. [BTW, if any of you have received my RQ:AiG character sheets yet, let me have any comments. I think I've sent out all but the non-US copies.] 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 AA22099; Wed, 2 Feb 94 16:26:49 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA20216; Wed, 2 Feb 94 17:26:35 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 17:26:46 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 17:26:29 EST From: Mark S. c/o Tom Yates To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Sorcery Date: Wed, 2 Feb 94 17:27:32 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: <1E0018E24B2@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >> Sorcery in Glorantha does not consist of sorcerers, >> even master sorcerers, that can maintain dozens of small spells, or >> easily cast spells at great ranges, and the mechanics intentionally >> reflect this. > Well if they aren't made significantly more effective, either by having >better spells or less skills (say the skill Tap to tap any stat, or Enhance >to replace the various Enhance (Characteristic) spells), then I doubt that >there would be any Sorcery in Glorantha. Sorcery has a number of advantages. It is flexible. You can learn both death and healing magic without every claiming that you are some sort of evil illuminate. Sorcerors don't have to gather together with a few hundred fellow initiates five times a year to keep their magic from going away. Sorcery spells grow in power as your skill grows. You can cast Disrupt for three decades and you'll still only do 1d3. The feudal western societies prosper because they have specialists who know a lot about fighting (knights), and specialists (wizards) who cast powerful magic on the knights adding to their shock value. A sorceror does not fight a rune lord; a knight, backed by a wizard's magic, fights the rune lord. I do agree with Paul, Graeme, George, and others that the RQIII range table worked fine. Mark S.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA23004; Wed, 2 Feb 94 16:36:09 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA20670; Wed, 2 Feb 94 17:33:15 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 17:36:03 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 17:33:06 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Ad copy Date: Wed, 02 Feb 1994 14:33:01 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: <1E01DC60375@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >RuneQuest: Adventures in Glorantha >A game of epic roleplaying The game of mythic roleplaying [this is the High Concept, what RQ delivers that no one else does] >Forget realms best forgotten, run from the shadows, leave >the masquerade behind...Glorantha's back. Sounds negative. And your new buyers won't know where Glorantha went (whatever Glorantha is). >provides you with the detailed mechanics Don't use the gamespeak term "mechanics" >For the advanced player, Adventures in Glorantha provides Is this for beginners or advanced players? You're mixing your message. (And if you must leave something like this in, use a term other than "advanced;" perhaps "mature" or "experienced?") >innovative rules and comprehensive background material, >and the best developed game world in existence, Glorantha, >a world in which creation has not stopped. It allows you >enter a world unlike any other, where you can learn the >inner mysteries of the gods and venture on unexplored paths >of mythic reality. [Later] you've got too much detail about Glorantha. Why not just say something about "a magic land where even farmers cast spells" and "where your adventurer can walk into the myths that made the land." Remember, the high concept is MYTH, not Epic (RQ is epic only in the time needed to play a combat; Pendragon is better for epics because it better portrays epic scope). >First there came the renaissance, now is the time for the reformation. What audience is this targeted at? I like Loren's version better (except the last 3 paragraphs should probably go away). It emphasizes people and story, rather that setting. Is he really a marketing student or what?  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA27956; Wed, 2 Feb 94 17:32:50 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25053; Wed, 2 Feb 94 18:32:39 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 18:32:44 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 18:32:29 EST From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Shimmer Date: Wed, 2 Feb 94 18:31:48 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: <1E11B3711BF@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> How are other poor visibilty conditions handled, e.g., mist, smoke, etc.? Is there anyone who thinks that they should be handled by a Dodge bonus rather than an Attack penalty? If not, then leave Shimmer the traditional way. - Paul reilly  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA09773; Thu, 3 Feb 94 00:07:59 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA26818; Wed, 2 Feb 94 18:57:29 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 18:57:39 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 18:57:16 EST From: "Loren J. Miller" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Shimmer Date: 02 Feb 1994 18:56:58 -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: <1E184F81703@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Paul's right. The shimmer spell description should simply state that the spell obscures the target with a haze, and that this obscures the vision of anyone who wants to attack him to the tune of -5% per point. It seems to me that the only reason why anybody complained was that some GMs must like having secret information, like combat modifiers, from their players, and they picked on Shimmer which was a perfectly reasonable spell under the old mechanics. Keep shimmer as it was. Defense, however, is another thing entirely. -- Loren  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA02617; Wed, 2 Feb 94 18:27:28 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA28814; Wed, 2 Feb 94 19:27:14 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 19:27:23 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 19:26:47 EST From: "Loren J. Miller" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re-revised ad copy Date: 02 Feb 1994 19:25:49 -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: <1E202F3016A@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> This is my re-revised copy, with changes as per suggestions by David Dunham and others. I kept an awesome line from the original (Walk through a land of myth, armed and armored with the bones of the gods) but revised almost everything else. The stuff about handling beginning roleplayers and "advanced" roleplayers was unneccessary. We're trying to sell Glorantha here, the coolest setting around, not the system (which is also cool, but of secondary importance). If AH can get permission, the ad copy should also mention the designers of Gloranthan material, and any other hit games they've worked on, because in the case of Glorantha that *will* make sales. Besides, designers should have their names on the outside of the box. Finally, I wanted to fill in some of the gaps in the information about previous editions of RQ. The original copy made it look like this was the 2nd edition of RQ. I also thought we should say that RQ3 was a good thing, since you never admit to laziness when you're trying to look good. Despite the marketing hype, the additions are accurate---mostly. And no, I'm not a marketing student. I yam what I yam. ----------------------- Glorantha is back! One of the first and most complete fantasy roleplaying game worlds, a labor of love designed by the same people who designed Call of Cthulhu, Elric!, Pendragon, and DOOM!, has been updated and expanded for the roleplayer of today. RuneQuest: Adventures in Glorantha The Game of Mythic Roleplaying In the heart of Glorantha, in a land called Dragon Pass, dragons and giants so huge they are mistaken for mountains and hills slumber away the centuries, waiting for some brave hero to awaken them. Foul broos and hungry trolls skulk through the hills, hunting farmers on their steads. And in Boldhome rebels plan bold strokes against the encroaching Empire. - Walk through a land of myth, armed and armored with the bones of the gods. - Search out arcane, ancient magics - Probe forbidden secrets - Bring Lunar civilization to the savage Orlanthi hill tribes or save your people from the decadent, chaos-embracing Lunar Empire. In 1978, the 1st edition of RuneQuest set the standard for other roleplaying games. With the world of Glorantha, RuneQuest brought roleplayers out of the dungeon and into an entire world brimming with adventure, romance, tragedy, and even slapstick comedy. With the 2nd and 3rd editions RuneQuest raised the stakes for organization and graphical presentation in roleplaying games. This 4th edition of RuneQuest continues the evolution of the game system, making it even easier to use Glorantha as a roleplaying setting and remaining consistent with the previous rules so that those who have old RuneQuest materials can continue to use them. If you have already been introduced to RuneQuest and Glorantha, the 4th edition will bring you to a new level of understanding. If you have never seen Glorantha, then within these pages you will discover a rich, satisfying setting with terrifying monsters, cruel enemies, generous friends, and the greatest scenery in the universe. RuneQuest: Adventures in Glorantha is the perfect introduction to roleplaying in Glorantha. It tells you what a fantasy roleplaying game is, guides you through the creation of an adventurer, and gives you the rules and background material you need to begin exploring the magical world of Glorantha, which Greg Stafford and his friends have been discovering ever since 1965. This game of mythic storytelling provides everything you need to begin your adventures in Glorantha. 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 AA04679; Wed, 2 Feb 94 18:58:22 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01000; Wed, 2 Feb 94 19:57:52 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 19:57:59 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 19:57:30 EST From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Shimmer Date: Wed, 2 Feb 94 19:56:16 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: <1E286054BE5@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Paul r. here. Loren says: >Paul's right Have to agree with Loren on this one :-) I thought of another argument for this, prompted by Loren's comment: >some GMs must like having secret information, Secret modifiers are appropriate for some things, but Shimmer (to judge by the name) is a _visible_ effect. When you're aiming at a guy who looks like a heat mirage, you know that it is hard, just as if you were aiming through smoke. Thus, since the target is visibly shimmering, you _know_ there is a negative modifier (i.e., your character knows it's a hard shot.) Oh, I rule that Shimmer applies to Darksense as well. (mirage effect would)  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA05720; Wed, 2 Feb 94 19:14:18 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01677; Wed, 2 Feb 94 20:13:51 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 20:14:00 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 20:13:42 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Re-revised ad copy Date: Wed, 02 Feb 1994 17:13:34 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: <1E2CB215405@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >I kept an awesome line from the original (Walk >through a land of myth, armed and armored with the bones of the gods) Yes, I thought that line was cool too. >We're trying to >sell Glorantha here, the coolest setting around, not the system (which >is also cool, but of secondary importance). Exactly. >If AH can get permission, >the ad copy should also mention the designers of Gloranthan material, >and any other hit games they've worked on, because in the case of >Glorantha that *will* make sales. Besides, designers should have their >names on the outside of the box. I agree there (after having to fight to do so with a Newton game which should come out this month). >And no, I'm not a marketing student. I yam what I yam. Just wondered, based on the list's host. >Glorantha is back! One of the first and most complete fantasy >roleplaying game worlds, a labor of love designed by the same people who >designed Call of Cthulhu, Elric!, Pendragon, and DOOM!, has been updated >and expanded for the roleplayer of today. Back? Again, where did it go (only the puny number of us who already have Gloranthan products know that it languished). And labors of love are those you don't get paid for. Is that a good thing to market? >In 1978, the 1st edition of RuneQuest set the standard for other Strike "the 1st edition" for brevity. >With the 2nd and >3rd editions RuneQuest raised the stakes for organization and graphical >presentation in roleplaying games. No need to mention the 2nd and 3rd editions, we're trying to sell _this_ one. Good job on the old & new player aspects.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA01914; Wed, 2 Feb 94 22:36:12 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA11336; Wed, 2 Feb 94 23:36:02 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 23:36:07 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 23:35:47 EST From: David Cake To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Sorcery Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 10:09:32 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: <1E6297962A5@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > > Sorcery has a number of advantages. It is flexible. It is almost impossible to pick up a new sorcerous ability in a period less than months at any reasonable level. The abilities that a sorcerer develops early in his career are pretty much the same ones that he is stuck with. This is opposed to shamans that learn spells in a day or so, and Priests that often have a wide range of spells available to them, that they can learn in a few days (though not often). The people who are really flexible are the Lunar magicians. > You can learn both death and healing magic without every > claiming that you are some sort of evil illuminate. A quick glance at GoG reveals (aside from the obvious 7 Mothers) Storm Bull: aside from Berserk, teaches Healing, has Heal Wound as a common spell, gets Cure Chaos Wound from CA Orlanth: Thunderbolt, Lightning, Bladesharp, Healing, Restore Health, Heal Wound Babeestor Gor : Axe trance, Slash, Berserk, Bladesharp, Heal Wound, Healing, and Heal Body from Ernalda. Even Humakt has Healing and Heal Wound! It is true that few cults have useful combat magic and Resurrect (only 7-Mothers and Aldrya really spring to mind) the sorcerers can't Resurrect at all! > Sorcerors > don't have to gather together with a few hundred fellow initiates > five times a year to keep their magic from going away. They still have priestly duties, though. I would like to see them get some benefit for this as well. > Sorcery spells grow in power as your skill grows. You can cast > Disrupt for three decades and you'll still only do 1d3. The feudal > western societies prosper because they have specialists who know a > lot about fighting (knights), and specialists (wizards) who cast > powerful magic on the knights adding to their shock value. A sorceror > does not fight a rune lord; a knight, backed by a wizard's magic, fights > the rune lord. > Shamans and Priests grow in both power and flexibility. Sorcerers mostly grow only in power. Your example of knights + wizards vs. rune lords points out a lot of the problem - sorcerers are less able and less flexible than most divine magic users, and frequently less powerful as well. > I do agree with Paul, Graeme, George, and others that > the RQIII range table worked fine. > Yes indeed. > Mark S. >  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA01895; Wed, 2 Feb 94 22:35:49 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA11332; Wed, 2 Feb 94 23:35:41 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 23:35:45 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 23:35:35 EST From: David Cake To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RQ:AiG : sorcery Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 10:12:59 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: <1E628AA430B@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > > I liked the rules, especially with the sorcery in them. Why? Well there are > two markets the rules have to satisfy in order for it to be > successful. > > 1. Appeal to the current RQ players. Many people like sorcery, and > want to use it in their games. We run a campaign in Ralios and NEED > to have sorcery. > Yep. Before I started my current playtest (Prax) campaign, my campaign was set in Sog City in Fronela. > 2. Appeal to new players. For this we need to keep the rules centred > and focuses on Dragon Pass. > I don't follow this bit at all - the new players have never heard of Dragon Pass, and whats more are unlikely to want to set there games in an area with a remarkable abscence of supplements. Prax maybe. > With a little compromise I think it can fulfill both objectives. And > the playtesting for this version should really help it. > Cheers Dave  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA10770; Wed, 2 Feb 94 20:35:09 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA05932; Wed, 2 Feb 94 21:32:24 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 21:34:59 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 21:32:21 EST From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Doubling and skills Date: Wed, 2 Feb 94 21:32:10 -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: <1E41AB06E91@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Okay, I've read Piaget, I've read Carnegie, and I've read other experts on learning and cognitive science. None of them say that certain skills are "twice" as hard to learn or "twice" as easy. What is the justification for requiring that an easy skill advance twice as fast as a normal skill and that advance twice as fast as a hard skill? Upon what basis is this decision adhered to? In other words, I would like to understand the reasoning behind this ruling. PS: 1d3, by the way is NOT 1/2 of 1d6 if one looks at averages. The average value of 1d3 is 2 The average value of 1d6 is 3.5 This makes hard skills 1.75 times as hard as medium skills to advance. Now, let us suppose that we do adopt 2d4 as the advance rate for easy skills. The average of 2d4 is 5. This gives a ratio of 10/7 vs. medium skills. Dividing 3.5 by 10/7 gives a result of 2.45, which would translate to 1d4. BUT, multiplying 3.5 times 1.75 gives a result of 6.175, which is either 2d4+1 or 2d6-1. If you want to preserve the ratio, at least honestly preserve it. Why all the math? Just to cast a little shadow on Oliver's assertion that a certain special sitiation is violated by using 1d3/1d6/2d4.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA01877; Wed, 2 Feb 94 22:35:27 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA11316; Wed, 2 Feb 94 23:35:18 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 23:35:23 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 23:34:35 EST From: David Cake To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Skill vs skill, and more heresy Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 10:33:20 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: <1E624556EA9@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > > David Cake writes: > > > > Can I just say that I like the proposed new mechanic, and I think that > > it is very clever, and PLEASE DO NOT USE IT. > > RQ needs some consistency. Please, just lets stick with > >' lower is better' , which we all know and understand, and which, > >more importantly, is already the way RQ (and published stuff which we need to > > maintain compatibilty with) does it. > Not that I care that much which system is used I just like to point out a > couple of things. Published material is unaffected to any great extent, > stats are more or less unchanged from existing works - other proposed > changes have far more compatibility problems (e.g. alterations to armor > values, damage bonuses, weapon damage, fatigue , hit locations etc). I am even more vehemently opposed to the changes to armor, damage, weapon damage, hit locations. I seem to be in the minority, as many people just see a new pretty mechanic that seem to help (not solve) some problems, but I see a compatibility disaster, the need to reissue every adventure, or have glaring (as opposed to minor) inconsistencies. I seem to be in a minority (most people liked the new damage system when first mooted here), but I think that it is an incredibly short sighted approach. The new damage system is better than RQ2/3, but changes like that are more appropriate to new games, rather than new editions (unless you are a biggy like TSR and have the market share and staff to reissue everything). > > I don't wish to appear a whining conservative (well, those of you who > > followed my input know that I am not at all), but on this particular issue I > > feel that it very definately should come down to conservatism - the marginal > > gain is very small, and it is a very big change to the game system (even if > > it looks similar probability wise, it will not go down well with a largely > > conservative RQ2 audience that we are trying hard to win back). RQ4 should > > appear to be a simple and natural transition. > You mean that RQ4 is targeted primarily at the existing RQ2 audience ? > Well if nothing of signficance changes from RQ2 to RQ4 (ignore RQ3) what > makes you think they would bother to buy it ? I think that there are big changes between the editions, and I think that RQ4 needs to change those parts that need improving (character creation) and build on what was there before. I just think that the easier the change is to understand and explain (without having to explain bizarre new dice conventions) the quicker it will be accepted by the first generation of buyers, who will mostly be the people who have played RQ before and want a nifty new edition. > I thought the idea was to produce something that was a significant > improvement over RQ2, and that at the same time would appeal to the > majority of the RQ audience whilst maintaining as much compatibility with > published material as possible ( and with some luck attracting new > players to RQ). > Actually RQ2 comaptibility is not a real point (though RQ3 is), and also the large number of people who have already played Elric! Call of Cthulhu and otehr BRP games - and who I suspect would find it easier if it worked the same way. > Someone also made the (excellent) point that if it ain't broke don't fix it, > the problem is not everyone agrees on what is broken. Some people consider > the current RQ combat system too slow to resolve combat, while others > seem to enjoy an entire evening spent on one combat. This single change makes very little difference either way - it is a marginal improvement. > > Changes to the combat system which retain the %skills as there basis have > almost zero compatibility problems with published material - since the > basic mechanics are described only in the rule books - which RQ4 would > replace. I'm not saying that the Miller/O'Reilly system is perfect or > necessarily the way to go - but at least we should think about alternatives. > I am talking more about compatibility with existing players than existing source material. I would find the change irksome and probably ignore it. > enough of my prattling > Tim Leask > ================================================================================ > Department of Computer Science /*\__/\ "Money is something you have in > University of Melbourne < \ case you don't die tomorrow." > Parkville, Vic., 3052, AUSTRALIA \ _ _/ Gordon Gecko. > Phone: +61 3 282 2439 \| -- > e-mail: tsl@cs.mu.oz.au > ================================================================================ > Cheers dave  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA13506; Thu, 3 Feb 94 01:22:19 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA06139; Wed, 2 Feb 94 21:37:01 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 21:37:07 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 21:36:48 EST From: JOVANOVIC@CUCCFA.CCC.COLUMBIA.EDU To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Sorcery Range Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 21:37:05 -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: <1E42DC32824@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Medium to long range seemed the worst (200 to 500 meters), as it allowed sorcerers to stay out of missile and spirit or divine magic spell range, yet fire off their own spells. Even worse when mounts or Haste spells were used, allowing them to keep their distance (this occured mostly on the Pamaltelan veldt, and also in the Wastes with some Kralori characters. On smooth terrain, unaided sight can distinguish figures out to a kilometer - add in vision enhancing spells and it gets worse. A few playtesters playing pirate, East Isles or a trade expedition campaign (I think) also complained about ship to ship range when one side had sorcery and the other did not. A more pressing concern is the use of spells such as Teleport and Homing Circle (or Sight Illusion) to transmit information (or passengers) over large distances instantaneously. I don't see the Imperial Mail as being quite that fast. These don't need much targeting, even at extreme ranges. Did you run mostly city based or forest area campaigns? The problems there were less extreme, other than the messanger service idea mentioned above. Oliver  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA01852; Wed, 2 Feb 94 22:35:10 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA11302; Wed, 2 Feb 94 23:35:03 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 23:35:07 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 23:34:33 EST From: David Cake To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: re: game size & price Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 10:41:41 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: <1E62431325C@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > > What to cut: > Hold in the sorcery section. Reason, it is not used by any of the listed > traditions. I think that the sorcery rules are one of the things that people are most hoping RQ4 will fix. > All optional combat rules. > Reason: While I like them they are most useful to combat between high level > types. Publish them in Tales of the Reaching Moon and if RQ IV sells, they > can be printed with something else. Again, high level combat is one of the things that people are hoping RQ4 will fix. > Aging an Inaction > Reason: I do not recall any serious problem with inactive adventurers. If > there is, the GM can handle it on his own. The only problem is - very little space is saved this way (and there is no obvious other place to put it). In any case, aging is quite important as a mechansim to discourage people from creating characters that are old and superskilled (unless the the character creation system has lost the flexibility that let you do that anyway) > Most of the Guidelines on DI > Reason, they can be replaced by the much vaguer and shorter RQ II guidelines > with little loss of playability. The loss of permanent POW means that DI > abuse, unlike other things tends to be self limiting. I have not seen the draft, but I imagine that these too are pretty short and so little space is saved. The RQ2 ones where definately too vague, BTW - for those of use who remember, they were a leading cause of Rune Questions in Wyrms Footnotes, and of optional rules articles. > The World of Glorontha > Reason: Not only is this info availiable in the support title of the same > name, it is not worth much without a map. > There should be some Gloranthan info in the book, but as far as I am concerned, it can be really brief. Cheers Dave  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA01802; Wed, 2 Feb 94 22:34:55 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA11270; Wed, 2 Feb 94 23:34:42 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 23:34:50 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 23:34:31 EST From: David Cake To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: re: game size Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 10:43:56 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: <1E6240E7DE7@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > > 3. It gives us more time to playtest, and me more time to push our version > of Sorcery :-) > Is this a joke? I think pushing a different version of sorcery is a very serious priority :-) > (This is really a serious post, despite the joke at the end.) > > - Paul Reilly >  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA12172; Wed, 2 Feb 94 20:52:02 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA06969; Wed, 2 Feb 94 21:51:53 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 21:51:58 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 21:51:39 EST From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Stuff in the book. Date: Wed, 2 Feb 94 21:51:18 -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: <1E46D225A4D@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Okay, I don't want to see rules without context. In other words, if you're not going to go in-depth into the societies that use "sorcery" like you do for the ones that use spirit magic and divine magic, don't bother with a whole bunch of information on sorcery in the core book. Let sorcery remain mysterious and unknown until you release a book set in a region where sorcery is actually used.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA12764; Wed, 2 Feb 94 21:01:50 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA07371; Wed, 2 Feb 94 22:01:39 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 22:01:45 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 22:01:33 EST From: JOVANOVIC@CUCCFA.CCC.COLUMBIA.EDU To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: RE: Doubling and skills Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 22:01:41 -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: <1E497682626@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> The skill costs (half for easy, double for hard) are built into character generation costs and training and research times. Simply put, we decided to design a set of rules where certain skills are harder to learn than others (say learning how to fire a crossbow as opposed to learning surgery, or studying a complex lore). Rather than make these rules overly involved, half cost/time and double cost/time seemed to make enough of a difference, yet not be too difficult to implement. I wasn't suggesting that 1D3/1D6/2D6 was accurate either, only that it was closer than 1D3/1D6/2D4. Only 1D6/2, 1D6 and 1D6 x 2 would really be accurate. If you're willing to trade accuracy for simplicity, I'd be more tempted to go with David Dunham and Nick Brooke's suggestion, which presents a simple, yet interesting mechanic (roll 1D6 twice and take the highest for easy skills, roll 1D6 twice and take the lowest for hard skills). Oliver P.S. David and Loren, thanks for the copy feedback, much appreciated.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA01862; Wed, 2 Feb 94 22:35:19 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA11304; Wed, 2 Feb 94 23:35:09 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 23:35:15 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 23:34:34 EST From: David Cake To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Skill vs skill, and more heresy Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 11:03:10 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: <1E624437509@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > > Paul Reilly replyin to Dave Cake: > > > Actually I prefer, as a slightly more complex rules (but one which > >Pendragon finds the need for as well) the rule 'best level of sucess wins, > >other wise lowest roll' ie 03 beats 05 - unless 05 is a critical and 03 is only > >a special. Or 40 beats 70 - unless 40 is a failure and 70 is a sucess. > > I like this more than the RQ4 maneouver style contest of sucess level, > >which results in stalemate more than half the time. > > Today I find myself (unusually) disagreeing with Dave Cake. > > The 'lowest roll wins' method is bad for the following reason: the less > skilled person usually wins if she succeeds at all. This is just wrong. > A 90% master potter should almost always make a better pot than her 30% > apprentice, EVEN IF THE LATTER SUCCEEDS. I can do a detailed probability > breakdown if anyone is interested. However the system works well if you are interested only in sucess of failure relative to each other - ie Hide vs. Scan. To explain - the two competing potters does not work well, because we want to get two different results from each - wether it was a sucessful pot, and wether it beat the other. But in Hide vs. Scan there is only one criteria of sucess, and it works well. The 30% Scan ends up seeing the 90% Hide about 20-25% of the time, which seems reasonable Probably degree of sucess (chance to suceed - rolled amount) is the best system but it really stacks the odds against the low skills . It is slightly more cumbersome, but in practive most of the time you only need to actually do the subtraction a fraction of the time - either one fails, or it is obvious which wins on ballpark figures. Yes, that is probably the system I favour for most opposed skill rolls. Thanks for pointing out the problems with what I said earlier. Actually, this level of rules I find very uninteresting, and I really have no strong opinion, but I would rather RQ does not adopt dice conventions wildly different to the rest of the BRP games. > _ paul reilly > David  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA01840; Wed, 2 Feb 94 22:35:05 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA11283; Wed, 2 Feb 94 23:34:53 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 23:35:00 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 23:34:32 EST From: David Cake To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: iconoclasm Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 11:13:23 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: <1E6241F40F5@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > I have always been annoyed at the RQ2 "Defense" and the > subtractive Shimmer. I want attack rolls to be straight- > forward and arithmetic-scarce. I much prefer the newer > Shimmer. Let's (for me) call the old spell "Defense" since > its parameters match the Defense of RQ2. > SHIMMER (Variable, Ranged, Passive) > This spell blurs and distorts the target's visual image > making it easier for them to evade a foe's attacks. Each > point adds 10 percentiles to the target's Dodge skill and > 5 percentiles to the target's parry skills. > Actually my group (to whom I have never mentioned the mooted changes to Shimmer) have made comments about its general uselessness. Basically even Shimmer at high levels is not that useful compared to Protection, so no PC actually owns the spell (several own Protection). > Note that Aldryami and Mostali have more than enough (except > good art) in _Elder_Secrets_. Speaking of ducks, I wonder if Unfortunately, with the new character creation rules, Elder Secrets (the rules parts) is now largely outdated, so the inclusion of such stats in E.S. is little use. > RQ3 fatigue needed to be fixed. RQ3 sorcery need to be fixed. > Much of the other stuff after that, maybe we could leave well > enough alone. Time and movement was okay with me in RQ3; AP > and ENC was okay with in RQ3; six kilograms per SIZ was okay > with me. > Character creation and some other areas of magic needed to be fixed as well, but I certainly felt that AP and ENC where not broken. > from BradFurst@aol.com >  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA01172; Wed, 2 Feb 94 22:19:55 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA10777; Wed, 2 Feb 94 23:19:46 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 23:19:51 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 23:19:34 EST From: gharris@Jade.Tufts.EDU To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Second Thoughts on RQ:AiG from George Harris Date: Wed, 2 Feb 94 23:14:24 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: <1E5E4430304@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> First, let me say it's gratifying that my comments on experience, training etc. have found sympathetic ears. I'd like to make some comments based on further pondering of a few matters. First, character constuction. Ruminating on the rules (can he do that? A COW?), I think they really aren't as bad as they seem at first. This is both good and bad, however: good, because they aren't that bad; bad, because they don't seem as good as they are (you never get a second chance to make a first impression). However, there area still a couple of things that you could do in the 2.0 rules that you can't do in RQ:AiG. Suppose the GM is setting up a Master level campaign, but you want your character to be more of a jack-of-all-trades. You don't want him to just have one primary profession. Now, in the old ("old") system you could just have him buy a couple of professions at the expert level instead. Now you can't do that. So, I propose the following OPTIONAL RULE You may, instead of choosing a single profession of the level of the campaign, choose two professions at the level below (unless the campaign level is novice or trained, of course). You would get all the skills of both professions. You would get the sum of the background points available to the two professions, but they must be spent at the level of those professions, rather than of the campaign. If the two professions have the same value for Magic, Wealth or Reknown, you get the value one greater than that; however, if they have different values, you only get the greater of the two. Example: In a Master level campaign, I decide to play a Lunar Soldier of Noble birth. Since I'm choosing two professions, I take them at the Expert level instead. So, I woudl get Attack, Parry, First Aid, and Scan at 75%, and Attack, Attack, and Parry at 60%. In addition, I would get Speak New Pelorian at 90%, Custom/High Pelorian, Persuade, and R/W New Pelorian at 75%, and a Attack and Parry at 60%. A soldier gets 7 choices, and a noble 4, so I would get 11 choices at the expert level. Nobles and Soldiers both get a 3 in Magic, so this character would get a 4, but the noble gets a 4 in Wealth and Renown as opposed to a 3 for the soldier, so I get the noble's 4. Pretty simple. I think it ought to at least be in the appendices, or at the end of the chapter. Another thing you could do in 2.0 that you can't do in RQ:AiG is have stats trained up in previous experience. Now, this doesn't matter too much in a low-level campaign, but if you're starting off as a Orlanthi Wind Lord with ten points of divine magic, it seems likely you would have trained stats at least once or twice. Now, this can be tricky, since in this system one point for a trained character isn't the same as a point for a master character. So, just say that you can train a stat up for one point for Master, two for Expert, or four for Skilled., and you can spend a maximum of four points on stat training. When you're a third of the way to your max, the cost doubles of course. Next, skill vs. skill resolution. The more I think about it, the more I believe that the best way to go would be to have the highest level of success win, and within that the one who made that level of success by the most winning. I'll enumerate my reasons. One: simplicity. This is very simple. Most people can subtract two-digit numbers, and those that can't are a small enough minority in a poor enough demographic that I think we can risk alienating them. So, it's easier to arrive at than the proposed system, which involves an extra die roll on the resistance table. That's much too unwieldy. Two: universal application. One thing that the Pendragon system doesn't do well is deal with skills greater than 100%. Say, I have a skill of 95%, and Joe Blow has a skill of 250% (in, say, Maneuver). I'm (sensibly) trying to disengage. I roll an 89, and Joe rolls an 88. Now, in the Pendragon system, I'll win this contest about 1/4 the time. In "make it by the most," however, I don't do nearly as well, winning only about 11% of the time. I think the latter figure best reflects the wide disparity in the skill levels. Finally, experience. The three basic systems that have been proposed are the one in RQ:AiG, in which the GM awards skill checks with a frequency inversely proportional to the difficulty of the skill; the one in RQ 4 2.0, in which the increase in a skill in based on the difficulty on the skill (1d3, 1d6, 2d6 for Hard, Medium, Easy respectively); and one that's been mentioned in the list, where you get two rolls per check for easy skills and need two checks for a roll for hard skills. I much prefer the middle one. The middle one is preferable to the first one (the one in RQ:AiG) because it requires much less work on the part of the GM. If the GM is always trying to gauge whether or not a skill deserves a check based on difficulty, then either the differences are going to vanish, or hard skills will never get checks. The middle one is preferably to the last one (the one mentioned on the list) because it requires less bookkeeping. You would have to keep track from one adventure to the next whether or not you had gotten a check in your hard skills previously. I think that intersession bookkeeping should be minimized. Also, it would be difficult to implement consistently. If you are required to get two skill checks for a hard skill to get a roll, then you would get two rolls for a check for an easy skill. Now, do you make the second roll before or after you added the d6 from the first roll? Also, how do you differentiate exactly how far apart in time two checks in a hard skill have to be to merit a roll? Or, if you get two adds for a roll for easy skills, and need to make two rolls to get a 1d6 in a hard skill, then the easy skill reduces to the system in 2.0 (gain 2d6), while for a hard skill you would have to keep track of successful rolls and skill checks simultaneously Bleah. Plus, you can bet that it will be written in such a manner that it can be interpreted in more than one way. Now, how about what values to pick? Someone has mentioned 1d3, 1d6, 2d4 as a possibility, someone else interjections that the ratios betwwen the average gains should be the same, so 1d3, 1d6, 2d6 makes more sense. Actually, the ratio between the average gain of 1d3 to 1d6 is not 1:2, but rather about 4:7. So, to keep that ratio, the average gain for an easy skill should be 49/8, or just over 6. For this value, the closest dice to use would be either a 1d10 or a 1d12. The 1d12 is a little closer, but then you'd get that extreme value of 12 three times as often as for 2d6, so 1d10 would be preferably. The best you could do, of course, would be 2d5 or 3d3, but I don't really think we want to do that... That's all for now. I'm sure you're relieved. -- 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 AA01256; Wed, 2 Feb 94 22:20:48 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA10861; Wed, 2 Feb 94 23:20:38 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 23:20:42 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 23:20:35 EST From: gharris@Jade.Tufts.EDU To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Thoughts on Combat in RQ:AiG from George Harris Date: Wed, 2 Feb 94 23:15:17 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: <1E5E8A056C2@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Time for yet another long laundry list of gripes and complaints from George Harris. I had a Sam Adams Double Bock with dinner tonoght, and I think those are about 12% alcohol, so forgive me if I'm overly incoherent or sarcastic (ask Mark S. about my sarcasm sometime). I promise, no differential equations this time. "A melee round is a short period of time, the amount of time required to plan and execute two actions." How democratic. Any two actions take the same amount of time for any two characters to plan and execute. If you're a Dex 21 Int 24 Elf casting one disruption and parrying, you don't gain any time on that Dex 7 Int 4 trollkin casting a heal 4 on his maimed leg (remember this guy from the experience section? He's still hanging around). As Tom Lehrer said about the army, RQ has taken the democratic ideal to its logical conclusion. It doesn't discriminate on the basis of race, creed, color or ability. I do see some improvement. At least you can draw and attack in the same round without forsaking your defense. I would, however, like to make a couple of suggestions; changes that would at least give some acknowledgement to the idea that a character that is faster should be able to get more done. Under All Out Attack: Cast Spells. Let a character get off as many spells as sie has time for. This won't make a whole lot of difference, but it does let that Dex 21 Elf get off three befuddles in a round if he doesn't have to dodge. He deserves it. He's small and weak. Under Attack: Physical Attack. First, bring back the fastdraw skill. I never had, heard or saw any complaints about it. Sure, it makes the game a little more flashy and cinematic, but we could use a little of that occassionally. At least put it in the optional rules. Under All Out Attack: Physical Attack. Let some one get off as many bowshots as sie can. This will only ever make a difference for a Dex SR 1 character that can make two or three fastdraws in a row, so it seems a small enough concession to make to satisfy a grumpy old roleplayer who misses the olden days. Ahem. I know I'm probably the only person left in the world who still prefers strike ranks, and *not* dividing the roundup into Move, Declaration, Melee & Post-Melee Move a la Rolemaster (ooh, low blow), so I'll stop griping on this subject. Oh, since I wrote these notes we had out first RQ:AiG combat. There are a couple of things that seemed like they didn't really fit. First, the whole Declaration phase seemed really bad. The idea that all the characters are going to know what all the other characters are going to do threw everybody. I've always thought that declaration of intent was to let the *GM* know what you're doing, not the enemy. I feel enough trust toward my GM that I don't think he'll let my statement of intent affect NPCs' decisions (stop laughing, Mark). Second, the way Parry worked seemed really odd. I like the fact that you can just wait until you are attacked before deciding to parry. This seems to me to fit in with the idea of parry being a reaction rather than deliberate. However, it seems totally wrong to be able to wait until you are hit before you decide to parry. This goes completely counter to my (admittedly untutored) intuitions about parrying. To really drive homehow wrong this is, remember that this applies to thrown weapons as well. So, Big Axe Mike throws his hatchet at me. It hits me, so I decide to parry it. Well, I can see how that might make...huh? Physical Attacks: Special Hit/ "On a special success, a weapon attack does double rolled weapon damage." First, this is unclear, at least to me. Does this mean you roll normal weapon damage (say a 1d8 for broadsword, getting an 8) and then multiply by 2, or do you roll weapon damage twice (so 2d8)? There's a big difference in the distribution. An example here would be nice. Second, I really dislike taking away the *old* special hits. Sure, they're different for three different weapon types, but generally a character only uses weapons of a particular type (except for missile, where pretty much everybody uses impaling), and it doesn't take a whole lot of neurons to keep those straight. Are we aiming this game for people whose lips move while they read? How about levels, classes, and armor that makes you harder to hit (don't say I didn't warn you about the sarcasm)? Besides, the different specials made sense. Crushing weapons work best for folks with big DBs, which is why trolls use them. Impaling weapons go through you and stick. Slashing weapons cut deep. Let's keep these. Don't dumb the game down so much, or only dummies will want to play it. Yes, I saw the optional effects section before I wrote that. Crushing weapons optionally do a minimum of one point for every five points of damage rolled. Did anyone think that through? How often will that matter, especially with the revised armor/weapon tables? Say a troll is hitting with a heavy mace. He's probably got a +4DB, and does 1d8, either *2 or 2d8 for the relevant hit. So, say he's fighting a fellow in plate. That's six points of armor. So, if he rolls a two (after multiplying or on 2d8), he does a total of 6 points, so the crush rule means that one point gets through that otherwise wouldn't. If he rolls anything else, it doesn't matter. Now, suppose a human with a +1 DB is swinging the mace. If he rolls a total of 2, 3, 4, or 5, then the special allows him to do 1 point of damage that he wouldn't otherwise. So, crushing weapons are relatively *more* effective for folks with *lower* damage bonuses (that is, special hits help them more). Is that really the effect you want? I would much prefer the old armor counts half against crushes. That helps the troll a helluva lot more than it helps the human, or the duck. Better yet, restore the old specials, max damage for a slash, double damage and a stuck weapon for an impale, and max (with the change in DB make this *2) DB to half armor for a crush. Is that really so bad that it must be changed? Is it bad at all? I say nyet. Dodge. Let a critical dodge turn a missed attack into a fumble. Please. It'd be fun. Consequences of ENC for Dodge: Again, change this to [Total ENC]-STR. Strength helps you carry things, not size. Hit Locations: Carl Fink says the reason for switching to a unified hit location table is to save time and space. How much space does it take? Five columns in a single table. What's the time difference between diversified and unified hit locations in a melee? Probably less than a quarter the difference between unified hit locations and no hit locations at all. I say, have the *main* rules be the separate hit locations for missile and melee. If you want to put unified hit locations in for any new creatures, or even for anything that's just a beast, fine. That's not important. Then put in a suggestion for GMs to do away with hit locations *altogether* for arrow fodder in the big combats. That's what's going to take up all the time no matter which hit location chart you use. If they take half their hits in a single blow, they're incapacitated. That'll speed things up a helluva lot more than going to unified hit locations would, and still maintain the realism of a separate table for PCs and "real" NPCs. Page 29, last line: should be "affect," not "effect." Pet peeve. Sorry. It's good to see the effects (here, it is "effects") of various amounts of damage to the various locations spelled out explicitly. Brave for the instant death rules for head and chest, as well. I would prefer a paring down of the number of combat skills necessary. Why not have all the weapons of a group (e.g. 1H Mace) use the same skill, and other weapons in the category (i.e. 1H Crushing) be at 3/4 skill. This would hardly be unbalancing, as most people stick with one weapon anyway, and would certainly save a lot of space on the character sheet, cutting the number of potential weapon skills by more than half. It would also be a tremendous reduction in bookkeeping as well. Suggestion: for each point of STR a character is below that required to use a weapon, reduce the damage done by one point. Leg armor is 2/6 the encumbrance of a full suit. 2/6? Let's stick with simple fractions and call 1/3 1/3. Nearly halfway through. Time for the big ramble, though, so you might want to bail out now. I am growing steadily more dubious about the wisdom and necessity of completely changing the damage and armor values of nearly everything in the game. One of the results of this, adn I fear the most significant one, is that RQ:AiG will be unusable without a great deal of work with almost every RQ scenario and "mechanical" resource that has ever been published, including the half dozen or so excellent sourcebooks of the RQ Renaissance. I'm not saying that this would kill off the renaissance, but it certainly won't do it any good. As I recall, one of the major impetuses (impetus? Impeti?) for this revision was that a not particularly brawny fellow armed with a dagger (1d4+2, impaling) could fairly easily maim the arm (or, indeed, leg) of a not particularly wimpy victim (say, a trollkin). Now, I don't think this is a good thing either, but I don't think that this (IMHO) minor problem justifies, nor that its solution requires, such a drastic and sweeping revision. Changing the point of death from 0 HP to negative total HP has already moved RQ out of the realm of the Far Too Deadly, and I believe this revision will take us just as far in the other direction. A dagger should not do 1d4+2 points of damage. That, on average, is as much as a light mace, or a quarterstaff, or a rapier does (and since it's an impaling weapon, under the old rules average is more important than maxima [if that's not clear I'll try to explain, but don't hold your breath; as I type I've got >100 messages in my mailbox]). So, lower it. Make a dagger do 1d3+1. Much more reasonable, at least in the trollkin's point of view, and it causes many fewer compatibility problems. It is also true, however, that the current damage table (1d4 for 25-32, 1d6 for 33-41 etc.) is far too generous, as it was not revised when SIZ went from 3d6 to 2d6+6 in the last major revision (hmm, need to be careful in thinking through and playtesting all the ramifications of revisions...good thing we're doing that). That is also solved much more easily than changing DB from a die roll to a straight add. Why not just shift everything up five points from the 2.0 draft, so you get +1d2 for 26-30, +1d4 for 31-35, etc. Of course, to me the nature of the DB table is less of an issue, because I agree it needs to be revised. Still, does the entire weapons table so desparately need to be altered that it's worth making all previous related material (or RQ:AiG itself) so much more difficult to use that it's virtually obsolete. {I realize there's some hyperbole here, but, hey. So sue me.} Spirit Combat: I agree that this doesn't really belong in the combat chapter. Sure, spirit combat takes place during combat, but so does spellcasting. Move it to the Shamanic Practices chapter (more on that [probably much] later). This system does seem much less cumbersome than the one in the 2.0 draft, though. Some of the special combat options don't seem like they would work with the mechanic described in the intro to the section, particulatly Steady and Grapple: Throw. Also, bring back the Prepared Fire tactic (or do you *really* hate bowmen?). Why have artificial breakpointsin the way SIZ affects knockback? Just say every point of SIZ over 10 is subtracted from rolled damage for purposes of calculating knockback. That way you get rid of a clunky table, and anyone using the optional rules is going to be able to do simple subtraction. That's all for now, stay tuned for the exciting Economics critique! -- 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 AA15269; Thu, 3 Feb 94 01:53:07 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA11013; Wed, 2 Feb 94 23:26:26 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 23:26:30 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 23:26:23 EST From: Raymond D Turney To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: RE: Doubling and skills Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 20:26:21 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1E6015A75EE@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> I've always been a fan of rolling twice as opposed to varying dice sizes.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA04638; Wed, 2 Feb 94 23:17:13 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA13142; Thu, 3 Feb 94 00:17:04 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 0:17:10 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 0:16:54 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Doubling and skills Date: Wed, 02 Feb 1994 21:16:50 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: <1E6D8D9593F@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >Okay, I've read Piaget, I've read Carnegie, and I've read other >experts on learning and cognitive science. None of them say that >certain skills are "twice" as hard to learn or "twice" as easy. I assume there's justification for some skills being easier than others? (Most relevant to RQ, almost any book on the subject asserts that the Crossbow supplanted the Longbow because it required less training.) If we have Hard, Medium, and Easy skills, I too don't see any absolute need that the differences be double. >I'd be more >tempted to go with David Dunham and Nick Brooke's suggestion, which >presents a simple, yet interesting mechanic (roll 1D6 twice and take >the highest for easy skills, roll 1D6 twice and take the lowest for >hard skills). This is obviously not doubling, but should be as easy to remember as d3/d6/2d6.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA06133; Wed, 2 Feb 94 23:42:47 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA14081; Thu, 3 Feb 94 00:42:39 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 0:42:46 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 0:42:29 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Thoughts on Combat in RQ:AiG from George Harris Date: Wed, 02 Feb 1994 21:42:12 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: <1E745F118E6@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >"A melee round is a short period of time, the amount of >time required to plan and execute two actions." I applaud the much more playable "you can do two things" than the complexity of SR. (In fact, there's really no need for SR at all any more, but that's another story.) > bring back the >fastdraw skill. I never had, heard or saw any complaints about >it. I guess I never complained publicly. It was definitely a cool idea, but it Didn't Work. It was really messy, especially for GMs trying to accurately run a group of archers. My players all loved it, I (as GM) hated it. >Dodge. Let a critical dodge turn a missed attack into a >fumble. Please. It'd be fun. I dodged your arrow, so your bow broke? I don't think so. (Besides, I like the speedup of not having to roll if the attack missed.) >Carl Fink says the reason for switching to >a unified hit location table is to save time and space. How much >space does it take? Five columns in a single table. What's the >time difference between diversified and unified hit locations in >a melee? Probably less than a quarter the difference between >unified hit locations and no hit locations at all. It saves this GM mucho time. (You said you were a player, not a GM, and therefore you're not qualified to speak on time-related issues. OK, maybe I'm being sarcastic, but no rules ever bother the players. It's the GM who's the bottleneck.) > Then put in a >suggestion for GMs to do away with hit locations *altogether* for >arrow fodder in the big combats. Why have a rule if you're going to tell people not to use it? > I would prefer a paring down of the number of combat >skills necessary. Why not have all the weapons of a group (e.g. >1H Mace) use the same skill, and other weapons in the category >(i.e. 1H Crushing) be at 3/4 skill. Yes (see, I can agree with you :-) > Why have artificial breakpointsin the way SIZ affects >knockback? Just say every point of SIZ over 10 is subtracted >from rolled damage for purposes of calculating knockback. That >way you get rid of a clunky table, and anyone using the optional >rules is going to be able to do simple subtraction. And I agree with this too!  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA18353; Thu, 3 Feb 94 02:59:31 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA19017; Thu, 3 Feb 94 03:59:17 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 3:59:29 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 3:59:03 EST From: devinc@aol.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Game Size & Format Date: Thu, 03 Feb 94 01:10:26 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: <1EA8CCD4E0C@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> A few comments on the size/format debate. The primary way RQ will turn off new people is by doing what was done with RQ3 and with Basic D&D. That is, by issuing the same game in many formats. Not only does it confuse new prospects who are not certain that if they buy the "Deluxe Set" they are getting the same stuff that is in the "Gamemaster's Set", but it gives the idea to potential buyers that the issuing game designers/company do not know what they are doing. The purchase of a significant new roleplaying system is an investment, in both money and (if you are a GM) time. The return on one's investment comes not only with the core rules, but with the proposed supplements, scenarios, etc that follow. If the core rules are issued in a haphazard fashion, a potential buyer must only assume that the future products will be issued in a similar manner. The gist of all of this is that, more importantly than deciding whether to issue a really large single book, a single boxed set of several books, a three-ring binder set what upcoming areas to be inserted, or a small set of core rules followed by supplements, is that whatever is done must be done CONSISTENTLY. Do not issue a single hardbound book, and then issue a boxed set with the same rules split into several different books and with a bonus scenario. Do not issue a basic boxed set or book and then a deluxe boxed set or book. All of these devices sow confusion amongst the general buying public. Instead, decide on a format and make that the one and only format. My vote for format would be a core rule system in three ring binder format (much as ASL or the AD&D monster manuals). While I have no idea if the three-ring approach is too expensive, it certainly allows for errata and supplements to be inserted seemlessly into the rulebook. It also allows TOTRM and other mags to have articles and optional rules which can be substitutued. Finally, it allows GMs to add or delete from their rulebook any optional rules that they deem worthy of inclusion/exclusion. Probably, in any form, the core set should include ALL rules (from Shamanism to Sorcery). A second book/chapter should include a GoG type writeup of cults, and the third book/chapter should have monsters, etc. I know we are trying to integrate Glorantha into the rules this time, but obviously, the world of Glorantha is too voluminous to even begin to include in a set of core rules. Why try? Simply have the core rules give the nuts and bolts of Gloranatha (the cults, the monsters, etc) and leave the cultural/philosophical/socialogical aspects to supplements. Devin Cutler devinc@aol.com  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA11261; Thu, 3 Feb 94 00:40:01 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA16098; Thu, 3 Feb 94 01:39:47 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 1:39:58 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 1:39:34 EST From: Raymond D Turney To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: game size Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 22:39:26 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1E839946D2E@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> I would like to propose a more sophisticated view of our market, which will clarify why I am so strongly opposed to eliminating sorcery and so relatively willing to cut the Glorontha material in the first and last chapters if we have to. An FRP sells primarily to potential GMs, and only secondarily to players. Reason: If a player buys a system, would like to try it, but does not happen to know any GM who runs it, he has few options. If he is himself energetic, willing to do the work, and able to lead people to follow him into trying it he can GM it himself. In this case he may generate further sales to his new players. Of course, if this is true he is also a potential GM. If not, he reads it and puts it on the bookshelf generating no further sales. If well off he may buy some more support material, but then again he may not. In short, only the GM is an engine driving further sales. Once this is understood, our market falls into four categories: a) GM's and groups who now run RQ {either II or III}; b) Potential GM's who played RQ II, liked it and Glorontha, but would not follow Chaosium and Avalon Hill into RQ III with its non Gloronthan setting, and unworkable sorcery system. c) Potential GM's who bought RQ III and for one reason or another rejected it. d) Potential GM's with no prior exposure to RQ. Group a) those who already play RQ, is important for two reasons. First, if at all possible it would be good to bring the RQ II diehards back into the fold and buying scenario packs. Second, many of these groups will buy one or two copies of RQ IV to evaluate it. We want them to convert, and the rest of them to buy copies {and replacement copies, etc}. IF RQ IV is not what they want, this may not happen. REFUSAL OF EXISTING GM's TO SWITCH IS AFTER ALL WHAT KILLED RQ III. If what they most want from RQ IV is a workable sorcery system, and I think this is true; publication of RQ IV without sorcery would be a disaster. The other advantages of RQ IV, while real, might not be discovered because disappointment with the absence of sorcery leads groups not to adopt it. To these groups, cutting Gloronthan history that can be found in WoG {which they already have} is reasonable. My proposal to cut shamanism is based purely on not having head a large demand for upgraded shaman rules. Group b) Potential GM's who played RQ II but would not adopt RQ III are important because THEY ARE THE LARGEST GROUP OF COMPETENT GMs AVAILABLE to increase the pool of good potential RQ GMs. I think there are a fair number of people who have played for ten years, and used to like RQ. As evidence I offer the ridiculous prices being asked for RQ II and Cults of Prax in flea markets, etc. Melee and Wizard, DragonQuest, Swordbearer, etc, also from the 78-82 era are not similarly marked up. Given the small size of the current RQ community, I think our fastest way to grow is to entice some of these GM's back. The basic reasons some of them left were that RQ III with no Glorontha and no sorcery, disappointed them, and they had hopes that Hero System, Warhammer, etc would solve the basic rules problems associated with RQ. Again, if you want to get these people back, you have probably got to offer a workable sorcery system. Group c) Those who saw only RQ III and did not like it, is regrettably small. If there were more of them, more copies of RQ III would have been sold. Jokes aside, I am not pushing to recruit these people because most of them have no sentimental attachment to RQ leading them to buy the first copy of RQ IV. Also, they do not seem to constitute a bloc with unified desires easily understood by analysis. Group d) New GM's, is where RQ's long run future has to come from. But most GM's of any system start out as players of that system, who for one reason or another switch or resort to GMing. As such they are now, or will first become, players in a group with a GM who has already played RQ. This means they probably have to be reached by a technique that appeals to existing GM's. Frankly, I tend to think an expensive basic book, which people will bitch about and only buy one or two copies per group of at first for evaluation purposes, is a lesser evil than cutting a lot of the good stuff. After all, AD&D is neither cheap nor short. Sorcery is almost the last thing I would cut because many of the potential GMs we want to appeal to really want a workable sorcery system from RQ IV. I agree that some of the other stuff in RQ IV may be more valuable in the long run, that shamanism is theoretically more useful than sorcery given the prevalence of packs set in Prax and our Dragon Pass setting, etc. The customer is not always right, quite often he does not know what he really wants till he tries it. On the other hand, if you do not give an initial batch of customers what they want, they may never try your product and thus never find out about the other stuff they did not know they wanted till after they found out about it.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA12337; Thu, 3 Feb 94 00:51:44 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA16354; Thu, 3 Feb 94 01:51:35 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 1:51:44 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 1:51:27 EST From: Raymond D Turney To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Thoughts on Combat in RQ:AiG from George Harris Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 22:51:21 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1E86C5B47D6@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> The purpose of not rolling for parries till after you see if you have been hit it to streamline combat by not having people waste time rolling when their enemy has missed. Frankly, I'm not so hot on changing armor and damage values either. While the new values may play a bit faster, a lot of scenario packs and rolled up character use existing RQ III values, and I hadn't heard a lot of complaint about that aspect of RQ III.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA12726; Thu, 3 Feb 94 01:04:43 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA16614; Thu, 3 Feb 94 02:04:35 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 2:04:42 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 2:04:21 EST From: Raymond D Turney To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: iconoclasm, cows, runeLords Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 23:04:13 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1E8A348346B@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Agreed, i'm pro-Lunar. Ray Turney  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA12900; Thu, 3 Feb 94 01:06:50 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA16626; Thu, 3 Feb 94 02:06:41 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 2:06:48 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 2:06:31 EST From: Raymond D Turney To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Thoughts on Combat in RQ:AiG from George Harris Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 23:06:20 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1E8AC8234BA@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Favor reduction of number of combat skills by elimination of weapon specificty. - Ray Turney  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA14201; Thu, 3 Feb 94 01:41:22 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA17476; Thu, 3 Feb 94 02:41:11 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 2:41:20 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 2:41:09 EST From: Erik Schumann To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: unsub Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 08:40:36 +0100 (MET) 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: <1E940510809@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> UNSUB -- ====================================================================== Erik Schumann | schumann@kirk.fmi.uni-passau.de | 2:2494/22.11@fidonet ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Eduard Hamm Str. 18 | This space is for hire 94036 Passau | Your Ad could be placed here Germany | For pricelist contact one of the adresses ======================================================================  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA15261; Thu, 3 Feb 94 01:52:33 -0600 Return-Path: <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA17664; Thu, 3 Feb 94 02:52:26 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 2:52:31 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 2:52:24 EST From: Nick Brooke <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Do RQ2 players want Sorcery? Date: 03 Feb 94 02:48:16 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: <1E9707010A4@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Raymond Turney's recent discussion raised a point I find odd. > b) Potential GM's who played RQ II, liked it and Glorontha, but would > not follow Chaosium and Avalon Hill into RQ III with its non Gloronthan > setting, and unworkable sorcery system ... > The basic reasons some of them left were that RQ III with no Glorontha > and no sorcery, disappointed them, and they had hopes that Hero System, > Warhammer, etc would solve the basic rules problems associated with RQ. > Again, if you want to get these people back, you have probably got to > offer a workable sorcery system. The feeling I got over here was that more people were disappointed by the introduction of Sorcery than by the generally crappy rules associated with it. RQ had always had a distinctive flavour, and now here was this generic ruleset allowing you to play magicians in pointy hats, simultaneously removing Rune Lords and all the other wonders of Glorantha from the book. Add to the mix that it was hugely expensive, completely unsupported, and required large amounts of work to update existing games, and you had a terrible mixture for disillusion. Maybe things were different in the States. Maybe some of the RQ2-loyalists on this Net can tell their own stories. I think a Glorantha-heavy rulebook (i.e. packed with Gloranthan titbits to illustrate/illuminate the rules, *not* filled with pages of stodgy "facts") is *more* appealing to alienated RQ2ers than a "fixed" sorcery system. If having "no sorcery" disappointed them, why the heck did they stay with RQ2 (& no sorcery)? I now believe that giving a Gloranthan context for sorcery is the key to RQ:AiG, that the authors have gone the right way about it (though I disagree on some details), and I emphatically do not think it should be cut from the draft. (I do think more should be added on Lunar magical effects -- Glowline, Phases, etc. -- but that's another story). BTW, for people who have not seen the latest draft: Oliver & Co. have taken pains to produce new short-form write-ups, not just for Religions (similar but not identical to GoG format) but also for Shamanic Traditions and Sorcery Schools. Short-forms are much the same length for any of the three forms of magic, which is a good "selling point". (Might be worth posting a couple of them to the Net, so you can see what I mean). All of the examples are focussed on the Dragon Pass, Prax and Holy Country region, though stuff from inside the Lunar Empire is covered too, of course. Thus the existence of huge amounts of sorcerous magic in the East and West is discussed in a couple of paragraphs (where the existence of differences from the standard rules is emphasised), but the schools actually detailed are those of God Forgot, 3EB, Arkati, Trader Princes, Carmanians, and two from the Lunar College of Magic. Plus a few Saint Cults (Arkat, Talor and Paslac). There is no write-up in RQ:AiG for Hrestoli, Rokari, etc. -- for any of the big Western churches -- so Paul's dream of a Malkioni supplement with distinctive magic for the West could still come to pass. BTW again, I too dislike OJ's "justification" of soul-destroying magics. Sorcerers would say the same of priests' divine magic and DI's. This is a (mistaken) perception of another culture's way of doing things, not a good model on which to build rules. Plus, as others have said, there is little "temptation" to burn POW for minimal, temporary gains. I still like my "fix", which has the advantage of being entirely compatible with the rules as written -- you just need to keep track of when you spend POW, and work out rules for recovery/reusability. So I don't mind if it's not adopted by the authors: as I've commented before, it's a doddle to add things to a rulebook to suit your game, but a bugger to take them out... ==== Nick ====  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA15217; Thu, 3 Feb 94 01:49:59 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA17600; Thu, 3 Feb 94 02:49:50 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 2:49:57 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 2:49:45 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Evangelizing; Ray's missive Date: Wed, 02 Feb 1994 23:49:39 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: <1E965151F27@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> I think I've mentioned Steve Jackson Games does something like this; here's the description of a file uploaded to CompuServe: "Metropolis is looking for GMs to run demo games and tournaments at regional cons, and we're willing to offer free products and t-shirts as incentive. This letter spells it out. Email Terry or leave me a message on the Industry board for more information." I hope Avalon Hill does something similar to promote RQ:AiG. Ray Turney wrote a long (and with narrow margins and double spacing, it looked longer) message on why he thought RQ:AiG couldn't sell without sorcery. I'll try not to get into a big argument, but 1) I never saw sorcery as being broken; 2) it was highly impractical to run shamans under RQ3 or any RQ4 draft until RQ:AiG. While there may not have been noise, I think it was broken and is now greatly improved. (Only specialist spirit magic was broken, and if sorcery was broken, it was probably broken at all levels, so more people were exposed to it). I suspect most people who never switched to RQ3 are out of the hobby. That was 10 years ago! While it's obviously impossible to satisfy all of us, I don't think it's too hard to come out with an RQ:AiG that most of us will buy (even if it has to leave ducks or sorcery for a supplement). That should be a no-brainer -- I think Avalon Hill's learned from the RQ3 pricing mistake. What's a lot harder is to do a game that will attract people who don't play RQ. It's always going to be something of a premium game, but I think it can attract a lot more people than now play it.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA16706; Thu, 3 Feb 94 02:31:14 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA18448; Thu, 3 Feb 94 03:31:06 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 3:31:13 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 3:30:59 EST From: Eric Rowe To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Skill vs skill, and more heresy Date: Thu, 03 Feb 1994 00:30:40 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1EA15142898@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > But in Hide vs. Scan there is only one criteria of sucess, and it works >well. The 30% Scan ends up seeing the 90% Hide about 20-25% of the time, which >seems reasonable Reasonable? Seems to make the 90% hide barely worth rolling. > David eric  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA16750; Thu, 3 Feb 94 02:32:26 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA18510; Thu, 3 Feb 94 03:32:14 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 3:32:19 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 3:32:00 EST From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Doubling and skills Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 00:31:27 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: <1EA196212AE@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >... If you're willing to trade accuracy for simplicity, I'd be more >tempted to go with David Dunham and Nick Brooke's suggestion, which >presents a simple, yet interesting mechanic (roll 1D6 twice and take >the highest for easy skills, roll 1D6 twice and take the lowest for >hard skills). I'm more than willing to trade accuracy for simplicity. I definitely favour the 1D6 roll twice mechanic that you describe above. Regards -- Guy Robinson --  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA18609; Thu, 3 Feb 94 03:05:02 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA19146; Thu, 3 Feb 94 04:03:58 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 4:04:58 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 4:03:43 EST From: akuma@netcom.com (Steven E Barnes) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Evangelizing; Ray's missive Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 01:04:19 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1EAA0B31993@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >From ddunham@radiomail.net Thu Feb 3 00:24:22 1994: > >Ray Turney wrote a long (and with narrow margins and double spacing, it >looked longer) message on why he thought RQ:AiG couldn't sell without >sorcery. I'll agree that it is wrong to say the product won't sell without sorcery, if that is a correct summary of what Ray said. However, the fact that RQ2 didn't have sorcery is no proof that old RQ2 players don't care about sorcery. >I'll try not to get into a big argument, but 1) I never saw sorcery as >being broken; 2) it was highly impractical to run shamans under RQ3 or any >RQ4 draft until RQ:AiG. I for one considered RQ3 sorcery to be laughable. The shaman rules were also flawed. >I suspect most people who never switched to RQ3 are out of the hobby. That >was 10 years ago! Here's some anecdotes about my RQ group, of which Ray is now a member (however, he wasn't back when RQ3 came out). We all universally hated RQ3, but continue to play a RQ2 varient to this day. Our current group is a strange mix of RQ2 and RQ3 characters, so a good RQ4 would be really useful for us. Basically, everyone RQ player I knew in the old days hated RQ3. I have no idea if this was typical or not. -steve  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA18717; Thu, 3 Feb 94 03:08:18 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA19218; Thu, 3 Feb 94 04:08:12 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 4:08:17 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 4:08:11 EST From: akuma@netcom.com (Steven E Barnes) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Thoughts on Combat in RQ:AiG from George Harris Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 01:08:45 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1EAB3CA49E1@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >Favor reduction of number of combat skills by elimination of weapon >specificty. - Ray Turney So do I. I also think all melee weapons should have a 1/2 simliarity; similar weapon groups should be 3/4 similar. The special tactics skills (Feint, Flurry, etc), if kept, should not be weapon specific. -steve  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA18942; Thu, 3 Feb 94 03:16:34 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA19377; Thu, 3 Feb 94 04:16:28 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 4:16:33 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 4:16:17 EST From: Dustin Tranberg To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Magic Systems and Conserving Size Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 01:15:27 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1EAD6540961@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> I would argue that removing sorcery or shamanism rules from the RQ:AiG release is a Bad Thing. Having three *strongly differing* magic systems was one of the greatest strengths of RQ3. But, hey, I like Fatigue, so what do I know? Dustin (dustin@OCF.Berkeley.EDU)  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA20371; Thu, 3 Feb 94 03:48:36 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA19953; Thu, 3 Feb 94 04:48:27 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 4:48:34 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 4:48:12 EST From: Henk.Langeveld@Holland.Sun.COM (Henk Langeveld - Sun Nederland) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Ducks Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 10:48:57 +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: <1EB5E8628A8@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> _________ |Carl Fink: | | Is anyone else getting between two and four copies of some messages |from the list? |_____________________ This is about the Playtest or the Daily? I can answer for the Daily: I was getting bounced messages for one 'mckinney' who's account had expired. Instead of the standard 'postmaster' or 'mailer-daemon' these message come from a 'user database account'. How foolish of me not expecting that. Cheers... -- 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 AA20687; Thu, 3 Feb 94 04:05:37 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA20201; Thu, 3 Feb 94 05:05:24 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 5:05:30 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 5:05:11 EST From: Malcolm Cohen To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Do RQ2 players want Sorcery? Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 10:03:56 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: <1EBA70A4A90@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Nick Brooke writes: > The feeling I got over here was that more people were disappointed by the > introduction of Sorcery than by the generally crappy rules associated with > it. RQ had always had a distinctive flavour, and now here was this generic > ruleset allowing you to play magicians in pointy hats, simultaneously > removing Rune Lords and all the other wonders of Glorantha from the book. That is not my experience from the gamers in Oxford. Some people were *pleased* that the rules had been de-Gloranthised, as they did not run games in Glorantha, but in their own made-up worlds (personally, I never saw any problems in applying the rules to non-Glorantha, but it had put others off). I recall no comments saying "they shouldn't had added it" and lots saying "they ought to have gotten it right"! > Add to the mix [...] Vehement agreement here! > If having "no sorcery" disappointed them, why the heck did they stay with RQ2 Possibly because, like myself, they had already added e.g. C&S Basic Magick [sic] to the RQ2 rules, along with various incremental improvements pointed to by other Chaosium games (e.g. the creation of the "Agility" category of skills). It was rather disheartening to find (after forking out huge sums of money) that the RQ3 Sorcery rules seemed to be in no further advanced state of playtested-ness than my own; at least I knew how to get around the glitches in my own system! -- ...........................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 AA26512; Thu, 3 Feb 94 07:06:03 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA27538; Thu, 3 Feb 94 08:05:54 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 8:05:59 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 8:05:38 EST From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Ad copy Date: Thu, 03 Feb 1994 12:10:16 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: <1EEA9153AF7@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> My edits on Olivers ad: > - Probe the forbidden secrets of the God Learners. Cut this, this ought not be encouraged, and outsiders don't know about GLs anyway. Maybe keep the forbidden secrets somewhere else. 1. > Forget realms best forgotten, run from the shadows, leave > the masquerade behind...Glorantha's back. In 1978, RuneQuest > took the gaming world by storm, setting the standard for > what roleplaying games would become. In 1994, Adventures > in Glorantha will do it again. 2. > Adventures in Glorantha is the perfect introduction to > roleplaying. It tells you what a fantasy roleplaying game > is, how to create an adventurer, and provides you with the > detailed mechanics and comprehensive background material > needed to begin play in Greg Stafford's magical world of > Glorantha. The game provides everything you need to begin > your adventures in Glorantha with this game of epic storytelling. I'd say 1. and 2. are mutually exclusive in whom they address. 1. is good for expert gaming mags, while 2. is addressed to newcomers, who probably wouldn't have read this far. Put 2. in computer magazines etc, and get 1. into White Wolf and similar. > For the advanced player, Adventures in Glorantha provides ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^ I don't like the sound of this. This seems to exclude newcomers. How about: "To explore the depths of the world, AiG provides ..." > innovative rules and comprehensive background material, > and the best developed game world in existence, Glorantha, ^^^^ You don't get the job as second best fighter in town, but there exist about half a dozen of worlds with as extensive description, and about as much depth. E.g. Middle-Earth, Harn, Tekumel. Insert "one of"? > a world in which creation has not stopped. It allows you > enter a world unlike any other, where you can learn the ^^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^ Stress this? > inner mysteries of the gods and venture on unexplored paths > of mythic reality. Huh? I had to read this twice over, to really understand it, and not because I am no native speaker of English. And I think I know RQ and Glorantha... > Glorantha is a world of magic and magicians, where anyone can > learn to use magic. This is important, because this is what makes the system different from the class oriented rpgs the vast majority plays (yes, AD&D). > You can call on the gods to become their avatar > to defeat your foes...but at what cost? I am familiar with the word "avatar". Is the teenage college boy, too? > Crisis is at hand - it the time of the Hero Wars, where the forces > of the Lunar Empire will confront an uneasy alliance of foes. > Benevolent missionaries, well meaning officials, homesick > soldiers...these are the bad guys? Barbaric warriors, savage > beast riders, dangerous rebels...these are the good guys? I like this paragraph! It catches most of the feeling the Dragon Pass region offers. > First there came the renaissance, now is the time for the reformation. Cut this. > Leave the mundane world behind and begin your adventures in Glorantha. Ok, so how do the graphics look? A glimpse at the map, and maybe the helmeted heads of a Lunar officer (Fazzur?) and a Sartarite rebel (Starbrow?)? Include a female element, maybe it works to attract some females to rpgs and RQ in special. > And, for your entertainment, some of the ones that didn't make it past > the first cut : Rightly so. Loren's rephrasing: > Here's how I'd reword your copy. > RuneQuest: Adventures in Glorantha > A game of epic roleplaying > Glorantha is back! One of the first and most complete fantasy > roleplaying game worlds has been updated and expanded for today's > roleplaying audience. > In Dragon Pass slumber dragons and giants that are so huge they are > mistaken for mountains and hills. Foul broos and hungry trolls skulk > through the hills, hunting farmers on their steads, and in Boldhome > rebels plan bold strokes against the encroaching Empire. > - Walk through a land of myth, armed and armored with > the bones of the gods. > - Search out arcane, ancient magics > - Probe forbidden secrets > - Bring Lunar civilization to the savage Orlanthi hill tribes > or save your people from the decadent, chaos-embracing Lunar > Empire. Better. > In 1978, the first edition of RuneQuest set the standard for roleplaying > games that would follow. With the world of Glorantha, RuneQuest brought > roleplayers out of the dungeon and into an entire world brimming with > adventure, romance, tragedy, and slapstick comedy.[CR] This new edition of > RuneQuest continues the evolution of the game system, making it even > easier to use Glorantha as a roleplaying setting and remaining > consistent with the previous rules so that if you have old RuneQuest > materials you can continue to use them with this new edition of the > rules. [CR] If you have already been introduced to RuneQuest and Glorantha, > this new edition will bring you to a new level of understanding. [CR] If you > have never seen Glorantha, then within these pages you will discover a > rich, satisfying setting with terrifying monsters, cruel enemies, > generous friends, and the greatest scenery in the universe. Good text, but too long in one paragraph. Note the inserted [CR] > Adventures in Glorantha is the perfect introduction to roleplaying. It > tells you what a fantasy roleplaying game is, how to create an > adventurer, and provides you with the detailed mechanics and > comprehensive background material needed to begin play in the magical > world of Glorantha, which Greg Stafford began to write about in 1965. > The game provides everything you need to begin your adventures in > Glorantha with this game of epic storytelling. cut for gaming mags, keep in some form for non-gamer targeting > For the advanced player, [...] see above > Glorantha is a world of magic and magicians, where anyone can learn to > use magic. You can call on the gods to become their avatar to defeat > your foes... but Divine Intervention has a high price. better, but see above > Crisis is at hand - it is the time of the Hero Wars, where the forces of > the Lunar Empire will confront an uneasy alliance of foes. Benevolent > missionaries, well meaning officials, homesick soldiers... these are the > Lunar invaders. Barbaric warriors, savage beast riders, dangerous > rebels...these are the Orlanthi tribes defending their homes. Your > character can help decide who wins and what is the future course of the > world. I liked Oliver's version of this better. Combine? David Dunham: >>RuneQuest: Adventures in Glorantha >>A game of epic roleplaying > The game of mythic roleplaying ^^^ > [this is the High Concept, what RQ delivers that no one else does] Yes >>Forget realms best forgotten, [...] > Sounds negative. And your new buyers won't know where Glorantha went > (whatever Glorantha is). Yes >>provides you with the detailed mechanics > Don't use the gamespeak term "mechanics" Rules? doesn't sound better to me. >>For the advanced player, Adventures in Glorantha provides > Is this for beginners or advanced players? You're mixing your message. (And > if you must leave something like this in, use a term other than "advanced;" > perhaps "mature" or "experienced?") Yes. > [Later] you've got too much detail about Glorantha. Why not just say > something about "a magic land where even farmers cast spells" and "where > your adventurer can walk into the myths that made the land." Remember, the > high concept is MYTH, not Epic (RQ is epic only in the time needed to play > a combat; Pendragon is better for epics because it better portrays epic > scope). I disagree. If Glorantha is the focus, then the ad needs to stress that. Else: why is Glorantha the focus? > I like Loren's version better (except the last 3 paragraphs should probably > go away). It emphasizes people and story, rather that setting. Is he really > a marketing student or what? I'd go for a compromise. And: marketing comes with selling a product... -- 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 AA26499; Thu, 3 Feb 94 07:05:13 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA27499; Thu, 3 Feb 94 08:05:02 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 8:05:07 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 8:04:47 EST From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: game size Date: Thu, 03 Feb 1994 12:24:10 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: <1EEA5727E31@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Steve Barnes cites: >>>One idea would be to yank Sorcery and put it in a Western sourcebook >>>(problem: the rest of that sourcebook probably isn't ready). > Let me cast my vote against this. Mine, too. I'm going to playtest in Heortland, with Aeolian and Rokari Malkioni believes clashing. I'm going to have Fazzur as the liberator from Rokari religious oppression to the heavily Orlanthi-influenced Aeolian heresy... Paul Reilly: >> I'd actually favor this. I'd rather have a combined book with the >>basic Sorcery Rules and a "Sects of Malkion" section (like Cults of Prax). >>This would be better for several reasons: >>1. _Most_ characters don't use much sorcery, even in the West. Very few >>in Dragon Pass. Thus having an extra section in the rulebook that _everybody_ >>buys seems wrong to me - it's forcing players in campaigns with no sorcerers >>to buy rules they don't need. If you play a character from Seshnela or Loskalm, and you don't use sorcery, you don't use magic. Is this appropriate for Glorantha? >>2. Sorcery should be _mysterious_ and _alien_ to most central Genertelan >>characters. This is a lot easier if they haven't read the Sorcery rules. >>Even in a Western campaign, certain schools should _not_ have all their >>powers well-known. Galvosti, for example. > This issue won't be solved by having separate suppliments, as the players > can just get their hands on "The Compleate Sorceror", or "Western Pack" > and read it themselves. As much as I look forward to see such a thing, I don't expect it in this millennium. (Prove me wrong, please!) Meanwhile, we'll have to do without this, based only on what the rules give us. So let the rules give us enough to make at least educated guesses., and the supplement will come sooner than otherwise. The eastern and southern parts of Glorantha will be delayed even more, but there seems to be less actual interest or familiarity. And as much as I like the Paul&Mike sorcery system, if we can get RQ4 out ASAP, I can live with a detailed write-up as optional rules. I think only a few things need to be changed to incorporate that concept. If possible, think over the Paul&Mike system! -- 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 AA23241; Thu, 3 Feb 94 05:29:04 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA21730; Thu, 3 Feb 94 06:28:29 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 6:28:38 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 6:28:18 EST From: Malcolm Cohen To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Thoughts on Combat in RQ:AiG from George Harris Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 11:27:11 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: <1ED09B4579C@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Ray Turney wrote: > The purpose of not rolling for parries till after you see if you have been > hit it to streamline combat by not having people waste time rolling when > their enemy has missed. I have run this way for a long time; the rationale being that you parry a blow which otherwise would hit. This is (a) easier to run, (b) makes combat with several (low-level) opponents not quite so deadly, (c) helps to fix the RQ2 weapon breakage problem (the ability to parry a later attack is sufficient encouragement not to use it hacking your foe's weapon apart). OTOH, the rationale is doubtful and RQ3 fixed the weapon breakage problem anyway. >[on changing armour and damage values] > I hadn't heard a lot of complaint about that aspect of RQ III. There has certainly been some complaint on this list about over-effectiveness of armour and weapons. Perhaps the dagger example is a red herring; I have run dagger as doing 1d4+1 since RQ2 exactly because IMNSHO the value 1d4+2 was wrong. However, RQ3 made armour much more effective than in RQ2 and also increased the average damage bonus. I did not like the results; that lightly armoured characters are not as viable as they were in RQ2. The only ways to get RQ3 players not to be incredibly well armoured are (a) economics and (b) fatigue. Economics is not effective in the long term, and the fatigue rules slow down a melee which has already been extended by the excessive armour. So yes, I believe there is a problem with RQ3 armour and damage; in the interests of playing rules vaguely similar to other RQ players I certainly applaud the attempts to fix it. -- ...........................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 AA24537; Thu, 3 Feb 94 06:07:54 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA22466; Thu, 3 Feb 94 07:07:43 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 7:07:52 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 7:07:33 EST From: David Cake To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Sorcery, Re: Recent comments Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 20:06:42 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: <1EDB12833A1@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > I was thinking of something more like this: Form/Set would be a single > spell, with modifier to the skill dependent on the material ie > > Water +20% > Soft Wood 0 > Hard Wood -10% > Bronze -20% > Granite -40% > Iron -80% > etc > > This would modify the manipulation limit as well as chance of success > > One other reason I like this is to simplify characters: it's easier to > record and keep track of Form/Set 86% than Form/Set Wood 92, Form/Set Bronze > 70, Form/Set Water 30, Form/Set Iron 12 etc. > > Same for Tap: Pow 0%, Dex -10%, Int -30% etc. > > > Were you thinking of something more like what Burton Choinski (sp?) > proposed a few months back, with spells like Form/Set matched with > knowledge skill like Iron Lore, > Or, ahem, modesty forbids me, the sorcery draft I posted here a while ago, and now on soda.berkeley.edu (thanks to Henk and Shannon). I will probably produce a new draft as soon as I get my RQ:AiG, basically RQ:AiG sorcery (unless it turns out I really hate parts of it, which is quite possible :-)) plus this sort of flexible subject for spells. I still think sorcerers get a raw deal as regards flexibility, and I think that this system compensates them somewhat by making it easier to be a real expert in a limited area of sorcery, like element magic, or illusion, or emotion magic. > > > Graeme Lindsell a.k.a graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au > Dave Cake  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA24675; Thu, 3 Feb 94 06:18:37 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA26103; Thu, 3 Feb 94 07:18:31 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 7:18:35 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 7:18:16 EST From: David Cake To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Do RQ2 players want Sorcery? Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 20:17:26 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: <1EDDEF36864@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > > Nick Brooke writes: > > The feeling I got over here was that more people were disappointed by the > > introduction of Sorcery than by the generally crappy rules associated with > > it. RQ had always had a distinctive flavour, and now here was this generic > > ruleset allowing you to play magicians in pointy hats, simultaneously > > removing Rune Lords and all the other wonders of Glorantha from the book. > I think that while some people where disappointed by the general introduction of sorcery, I think that most where prepared to accept it as Gloranthan, but put off by the rules. > >If having "no sorcery" disappointed them, why the heck did they stay with RQ2 > Maybe the used the two pages of rules that Greg wrote in 'Son of Sartar' (posted here some time ago) - basically RQ2 Rune magic with a %age skill! :-) > -- > ...........................Malcolm Cohen, NAG Ltd., Oxford, U.K. > (malcolm@nag.co.uk) > Dave Cake  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA26406; Thu, 3 Feb 94 07:02:48 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA27345; Thu, 3 Feb 94 08:02:37 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 8:02:46 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 8:02:28 EST From: David Cake To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Thoughts on Combat in RQ:AiG from George Harris Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 21:01:41 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: <1EE9B805991@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > > >"A melee round is a short period of time, the amount of > >time required to plan and execute two actions." > > I applaud the much more playable "you can do two things" than the > complexity of SR. (In fact, there's really no need for SR at all any more, > but that's another story.) > Yep. Especially the way spells and missiles are now clear. > > bring back the > >fastdraw skill. I never had, heard or saw any complaints about > >it. > > I guess I never complained publicly. It was definitely a cool idea, but it > Didn't Work. It was really messy, especially for GMs trying to accurately > run a group of archers. My players all loved it, I (as GM) hated it. > I have no complaints - but my player that uses it is not a bowman. Why not just remove it for missile weapons? (but allow it for thrown). Anyone have any problems with it other than with bows? > >Carl Fink says the reason for switching to > >a unified hit location table is to save time and space. How much > >space does it take? Five columns in a single table. What's the > >time difference between diversified and unified hit locations in > >a melee? Probably less than a quarter the difference between > >unified hit locations and no hit locations at all. > Can I just make the plea for compatibility again? > > Why have artificial breakpointsin the way SIZ affects > >knockback? Just say every point of SIZ over 10 is subtracted > >from rolled damage for purposes of calculating knockback. That > >way you get rid of a clunky table, and anyone using the optional > >rules is going to be able to do simple subtraction. > Yep > And I agree with this too! > > Dave Cake  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA27487; Thu, 3 Feb 94 07:39:19 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA28688; Thu, 3 Feb 94 08:39:11 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 8:39:16 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 8:39:06 EST From: kenrolston@aol.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Ad copy Date: Thu, 03 Feb 94 08:44:26 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: <1EF37EF6AEC@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Way too wordy. Writing ad copy is the art of the slogan. And designing an ad is the art of graphic presentation. I presume the ad is primarily targeted at folks who haven't owned or played RuneQuest. (If that ISN'T true, if the ad is targeted at current or lapsed RQ gamers, then ignore my objections -- the copy is fine.) References to forgotten realms, shadowrun, and masquerade are pointless. Public acknowledgment of the ancient traditions of RuneQuest are irrelevant to the reader unfamiliar with RQ, and renaissance and reformation have negative implications. All the reader wants to sense is that this is something new he ought to check out. The first few lines you have are the best at this; phrases like God Learners, bones of gods, Lunar Empire, Hero Wars give an immediately sense of the unique and original. Other flavorful fragments that communicate originality and alien setting are names and titles, like Provincial Governor Sor-Eel, the Sun Dome Templars, Mistress Race Trolls, and Talor the Laughing Warrior. By the way, I hate writing ad copy, and am not particularly good at it. The Title and Headline should jump out and grab, and the rest of the text should just stay out of the way of the graphic... something like: RUNEQUEST A UNIQUE SYSTEM FOR A UNIQUE WORLD OF MYTH AND MAGIC Yeah. Yuk. But that's what it should look like. Ken  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA29721; Wed, 2 Feb 94 17:50:32 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25933; Wed, 2 Feb 94 18:46:40 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 18:50:27 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 18:46:21 EST From: graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Sorcery Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 10:44:50 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: <1E156787E7B@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > Sorcery has a number of advantages. It is flexible. It's far less flexible than spirit magic taught by a shaman. It's much easier for a shaman or priest to change their array of spirit magic over a week or so than it is for a sorcerer to change his spells. Since it takes so long to learn effective sorcery spells with the one spell = one skill, I would say that sorcerers are less flexible than the other spell casters. > You can learn both death and healing magic without every > claiming that you are some sort of evil illuminate. So can shamans, or priests of gods like Orlanth with many associate cults, by either getting the spells the associates or joining the other cults as acolytes and getting all their spells. >Sorcerors > don't have to gather together with a few hundred fellow initiates > five times a year to keep their magic from going away. The lack of a social aspect for sorcery is a defect IMHO, when they are meant to be the priests in Western culture. > Sorcery spells grow in power as your skill grows. You can cast > Disrupt for three decades and you'll still only do 1d3. Well shamans grow in power as their fetch grows, and priests do so as their sacrificed divine magic does. In my opinion it's much easier - and with the new rules more effective - for them than for sorcerers. The feudal > western societies prosper because they have specialists who know a > lot about fighting (knights), and specialists (wizards) who cast > powerful magic on the knights adding to their shock value. The polytheists prosper because they have specialists who fight, called Rune Lords, and specialists who know magic, called priests. They even have specialized cults like Humakt and Chalana Arroy to make them even more effective.. A sorceror > does not fight a rune lord; a knight, backed by a wizard's magic, fights > the rune lord. > Fights two rune lords, to keep the no. of rune levels the same > Mark S. > Have to run. Continue later. Graeme  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA06692; Thu, 3 Feb 94 09:52:23 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA07943; Thu, 3 Feb 94 10:52:02 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 10:52:18 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 10:51:35 EST From: mabeyke@batman.b11.ingr.com (boris) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: game size Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 9:54:45 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: <1F16D31171D@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> I just want to make a brief comment in reply to some things. A lot of people are calling to cut this or that from RQAG. This playtest draft is ~210 page, and is still missing a section or two; once these and art and maps are added, it will be pushing 300 pages or more. This is, I agree, a decent sized game, much larger than RQ2, somewhat more than RQ3. But RQ2, despite it's many die hard adherants, did not feature a complete game world. It wasn't until the Cults books were released that anything other than tantalizing glimpses of Glorantha were given. We want to do more with this, to allow players to start playing with *no* supplements. Once they're hooked, they will buy all the Gloranthan material they can find. But let's hook them first. If you look at the game market now, those games which are successful contain a game world that is well, if not fully, described in the basic rule set; Shadowrun, Vampire/Werewolf/Mage, Cyberpunk. And all of these weigh in at or around the 300 page range, or more. This does not seem to cost them sales, and I don't think mere size will cost RQAG sales. Don't get me wrong, I think we should make RQAG as streamlined as possible. But I also think we need to keep the cultural context of Glorantha. The religious descriptions with the thumbnail cult writeups, and the shamanic traditions (the new shamanism rules are, IMO, the best thing about this draft, even if I have problems with their implementation) are examples of what's good about RQAG. The sorcerous colleges are not done nearly as well, IMO, and should be fixed. And I agree that the text can be tightened up in a lot of places. Lets not gut RQAG because we think size won't sell. The gaming marketplace suggests otherwise. ---- Boris  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA07070; Thu, 3 Feb 94 09:58:29 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA08436; Thu, 3 Feb 94 10:58:12 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 10:58:19 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 10:58:02 EST From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Do RQ2 players want Sorcery? Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 07:56:09 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: <1F188C63BAA@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Nick Brooke writes: >The feeling I got over here was that more people were disappointed by the >introduction of Sorcery than by the generally crappy rules associated with >it. RQ had always had a distinctive flavour, and now here was this generic >ruleset allowing you to play magicians in pointy hats, simultaneously >removing Rune Lords and all the other wonders of Glorantha from the book. I can not agree more. An advantage of RuneQuest as it was before RQ3 came out as generic product was that to gain in magicial power you had to advance socially, either within your tribe, your guild or your cult. There was a social and magical status quo. That status quo encouraged the myths to thrive as these formed the basis for the many and complex alliances which composed Dragon Pass culture. Thats not to mention the ducks ... :-) Introducing sorcerers into that environment is like introducing printing presses. There would be profound social change. The baby was thrown out with the bath water. The rules themselves added very little and the background was discarded. >Add to the mix that it was hugely expensive, completely unsupported, and >required large amounts of work to update existing games, and you had a >terrible mixture for disillusion. I felt that RuneQuest 3 should have been called Basic Roleplaying 2. The fact that RQ3 carried the RuneQuest title means we have the somewhat bizarre situation that people are complaining about the presence of Runes in a RuneQuest publication! :-) Sometimes I wonder ... -- Guy Robinson --  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA11839; Thu, 3 Feb 94 10:43:45 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA12531; Thu, 3 Feb 94 11:43:23 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 11:43:41 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 11:42:45 EST From: Henk.Langeveld@Holland.Sun.COM (Henk Langeveld - Sun Nederland) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Ad copy Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 17:43:23 +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: <1F2478A5FD1@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> kenrolston@aol.com: >By the way, I hate writing ad copy, and am not particularly good at it. The >Title and Headline should jump out and grab, and the rest of the text should >just stay out of the way of the graphic... something like: > RUNEQUEST > A UNIQUE SYSTEM FOR A UNIQUE WORLD OF MYTH AND MAGIC >Yeah. Yuk. But that's what it should look like. More like:-) |> /\ |\ u n e \Q u e s t A Unique System For A Unique World Of Myth And Magic >Ken -- 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 AA14070; Thu, 3 Feb 94 10:56:09 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA13705; Thu, 3 Feb 94 11:55:50 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 11:56:04 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 11:55:09 EST From: mabeyke@batman.b11.ingr.com (boris) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Ad copy Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 10:58:05 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: <1F27C5D4B41@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > kenrolston@aol.com: > > >By the way, I hate writing ad copy, and am not particularly good at it. The > >Title and Headline should jump out and grab, and the rest of the text should > >just stay out of the way of the graphic... something like: > > > RUNEQUEST > > A UNIQUE SYSTEM FOR A UNIQUE WORLD OF MYTH AND MAGIC > > >Yeah. Yuk. But that's what it should look like. > > More like:-) > > |> /\ > |\ u n e \Q u e s t > > > A Unique System For A Unique World Of Myth And Magic > > >Ken > And for the graphic ... say have Larry Elmore (or someone with a similar style) do a scene of a Bison Tribe Uroxi fighting a really horrible looking broo, small and in the foreground. In the background, airbrushed in all misty, have Storm Bull himself, bleeding on the ground with the Devil standing over, with this *big* chunck of rock about to descend. That should get some attention. ---- Boris  0,, *** EOOH *** Summary-line: 3-Feb jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue. #RE: Doubling and skills Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA15252; Thu, 3 Feb 94 11:10:07 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA15056; Thu, 3 Feb 94 12:09:47 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 12:10:04 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 12:09:09 EST From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: RE: Doubling and skills Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 12:08:55 -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: <1F2B8393244@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Hrm.... I think I'll pull out me spreadsheet and run some math to see just what the roll 2d6 take the higher/roll 2d6 take the lower actually comes out to be. It does sound like a marvelously quirky and wierd way of doing things, though, and every new game that has really made a splash does SOMETHING wierd with dice (if you hadn't noticed).  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA16062; Thu, 3 Feb 94 11:17:48 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA15773; Thu, 3 Feb 94 12:17:35 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 12:17:46 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 12:16:56 EST From: David Cheng To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Ad copy Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 12:14:16 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: <1F2D95A0EBC@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> # That's more ad copy than I care to read. # Yes, Ray's comment is backed up by what they teach us in the evil MBA Marketing classes. Far too much copy. * David Cheng drcheng@sales.stern.nyu.edu / d.cheng@GEnie.geis.com Ask Appel & Rowe about RuneQuest-Con (212) 472-7752 [before midnight]  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA24454; Thu, 3 Feb 94 12:41:22 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA23264; Thu, 3 Feb 94 13:41:12 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 13:41:20 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 13:40:50 EST From: klyfix@ace.com (Klyfix) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: The Complete RuneQuest Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 12:32:39 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: <1F43F5815F8@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> I notice that there's some belief that RQ:AiG is going to be too big, and parts should be left out or it should be released in parts. I think one of the virtues of it ( heck, its BIGGEST virtue ) is the sense of completeness; the sense that it won't be necessary to buy three or four suppliments to be able to actually play. Keep sorcery in; we don't all want to be spirit magicians or divine cultists. Keep the Gloranthan stuff; the most successful RPG's of the last few years ( Shadowrun, Vampire and the other Storyteller games ) have had a well developed background as the main selling point. Keep shamans; they're poteintially really cool. The one thing that might be seperated out is the non-player creatures. A revised creatures book, perhaps combined with the old Gloranthan Beastiary, would be a good addition.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA17721; Thu, 3 Feb 94 11:34:38 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA17294; Thu, 3 Feb 94 12:34:23 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 12:34:33 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 12:34:15 EST From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Ad Copy Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 12:34:03 -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: <1F32347603C@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> One thing that has bothered me about the ad copy thus far: All of the emphasis on the "return" of Glorantha. I know that the idea of Glorantha's triumphant return mail appeal to us Grognards, but if RQ:AiG is meant to attract NEW people, stressing the "return" of a game world may just prompt the mental question "What was wrong with it the first time around?" I say to drop the emphasis on "return to Glorantha" and just present the game as a unit. Move the "return" stuff to a less central place in the ad copy. The theme should not be how RuneQuest has gone back to Glorantha. The theme of any advertisement should be how great RuneQuest and Glorantha are to somebody who's never SEEN the game before. Why? Grognards will pick up the game once they've noticed that it is set in Glorantha, they won't need to be told that it's a "return" (unless they're seriously stupid). New folks won't care that a game is "returning" to a setting they've never even heard of in the first place (and they won't care that the "return" is being made by a game system they've never even heard of in the first place). Let's put it this way--Every time I have EVER stated to non RQ oldfarts that RQIV was to return to Glorantha, I got a completely blank "So what?" The lesson I learned from this was that it doesn't matter what something is returning to from a marketing standpoint if people have no idea what that point of return was in the first place. Perhaps my experience is unique--but that may be because I purposively sought out people who have never heard of RuneQuest, Glorantha, etc. for the Pavis setting playtest I ran of the last draft. Remember, there are a LOT more gamers who have never even HEARD of RuneQuest or Glorantha than there are gamers who have heard of either.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA17963; Thu, 3 Feb 94 11:37:36 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA17509; Thu, 3 Feb 94 12:37:26 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 12:37:35 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 12:37:04 EST From: David Cheng To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Minimal RQ Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 12:34:42 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: <1F32F541B8C@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David Dunham sez: # RuneQuest and Glorantha. (Despite the typo in an earlier message, I'm not # concerned about selling to the existing market. At least half the # purchasers have to be new players so we double the number of RQ players. # When you get right down to it, our opinions are meaningless since we're # going to buy RQ:AiG anyway, whether it has sorcery or not.) # {And some other good stuff} While I agree with the thought that we have to sell to new players to succeed, I feel I must comment on the last part of this paragraph. RQ:AiG has to appeal to as many of us old-timers as possible, as we're going to be the ones out there evangelizing it. If _we_ don't have 99% faith in the quality of the product, it won't move. _RuneQuest_ is an old, stale name. I think it's a big mistake to try and trick the market into thinking it's a "new thing." Instead, we should try to convert current attitudes from "old & stale" to "a long-time classic, but updated and improved." My personal theory is that only a tiny percentage of buyers will pick up a game on a whim. Most hold out until they've received some "word of mouth," be that formal reviews in magazines, or more importantly and widespread, opinions from other respected gamers. As per my essay in the RQ-Con program book, we've got to help spread that all-important word of mouth to the uncleansed masses. To be motivated enough to do this, we've got to believe in the product ourselves. So, to get down off the soapbox and back to D. Dunham's point, I think we, the RQ opinion leaders/future evangelists, have to feel that our opinions have been heard and debated enough that the product is the very best it can be, within limits of budget, time and effort available. * David Cheng drcheng@sales.stern.nyu.edu / d.cheng@GEnie.geis.com Ask Appel & Rowe about RuneQuest-Con (212) 472-7752 [before midnight]  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA19190; Thu, 3 Feb 94 11:47:34 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA18304; Thu, 3 Feb 94 12:47:18 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 12:47:28 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 12:46:49 EST From: mabeyke@batman.b11.ingr.com (boris) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: RE: Doubling and skills Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 11:51:10 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: <1F358E94006@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > Hrm.... > > I think I'll pull out me spreadsheet and run some math to see just what the > roll 2d6 take the higher/roll 2d6 take the lower actually comes out to be. > > It does sound like a marvelously quirky and wierd way of doing things, though, > and every new game that has really made a splash does SOMETHING wierd with > dice (if you hadn't noticed). > Here's the distribution on roll one die with a bonus die (as they call it in Over The Edge). Just reverse for one die with a penalty die. Odds for rolling 1 6 sided dice, with a bonus die. 1 2.7778 2 8.3333 3 13.8889 4 19.4444 5 25.0000 6 30.5556 Average = 4.4722 I got this from a routine I wrote to give me the averages for the random method of characteristic generation, which is also roll one extra die and drop one. Turns out that the sum of the average of the characteristics is 90. Even with APP only costing half price, it seems that more than 80 points should be given for the deliberate method, or else the bonus die eliminated from the random method. The results obtained are just too different. ---- Boris  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA09603; Thu, 3 Feb 94 15:04:28 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA05608; Thu, 3 Feb 94 16:03:59 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 16:04:11 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 16:03:51 EST From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Shimmer: DM 0.02 Date: Thu, 03 Feb 1994 18:57:10 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: <1F6A1AD16D3@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> V.S.Greene > Stuff I'm not so fond of: > Why is Shimmer now Parry/Dodge Sharp? The logic of the shimmering > not affecting an archer's chance to hit you if you aren't aware he's > there escapes me; sort of like camouflage that only works if you can see > your opponent. Perhaps it could be changed to allow for a dodge under > circumstances when it otherise would be impossible. Good question. While I think that introducing a parry-enhancing spell is an overdue Good Thing, I liked shimmer for the special effects alone. And it is sure more fun than the generic darkness spells other systems use for just this effect, as someone (David?) pointed out. A reversed shimmer spell would be nasty, too, and certainly a trickster spell. "aim" or something, also good for hunting. And needs to overcome MP for living targets. Might work for one hit location only? -- 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 AA09616; Thu, 3 Feb 94 15:04:57 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA05704; Thu, 3 Feb 94 16:04:44 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 16:04:50 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 16:04:32 EST From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Ray Turney's market analysis Date: Thu, 03 Feb 1994 19:14:50 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: <1F6A49A663D@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Ray Turney's market analysis: > An FRP sells primarily to potential GMs, and only > secondarily to players. Good point. A lot of groups I know rotate their GM, though, and thus one group consists of say five GMs. > In short, only the GM is an engine driving further > sales. Agreed. > Group a) those who already play RQ, is important for > two reasons. First, if at all possible it would be > good to bring the RQ II diehards back into the fold and > buying scenario packs. I have met only a few RQ2 diehards. Most RQers I know in Germany have been very willing to buy whatever quality RQ3 stuff appeared, which seemed useful for their campaign and within reasonable pricing. > Second, many of these groups > will buy one or two copies of RQ IV to evaluate it. We > want them to convert, and the rest of them to buy > copies {and replacement copies, etc}. IF RQ IV is not > what they want, this may not happen. REFUSAL OF > EXISTING GM's TO SWITCH IS AFTER ALL WHAT KILLED RQ > III. Most existing campaigns will adapt the new rules to their campaign, and not vice versa, I'd expect. The regular campaigns which started pre-RQ3 will become a tumble of RQ2 through 4. Only if new groups or campaigns evolve, one can expect RQ4 to be played in pure form. > If what they most want from RQ IV is a workable > sorcery system, and I think this is true; publication > of RQ IV without sorcery would be a disaster. What they want is a variety of magic systems, designed to fit into the world. Sorcery, Lunar magic, divine and spirit magic, and as much other stuff as possible - dragonewt magic, darkness demons, disease spirits, elf bows, dwarf muskets... > My proposal to > cut shamanism is based purely on not having head a > large demand for upgraded shaman rules. Apart from RQ, only a few games offer "sticks and shamanism" style cultures. To cut this, would be to cut another strength of the game. On the other hand: To release it separately, might attract folk... > Group b) Potential GM's who played RQ II but would not > adopt RQ III are important because THEY ARE THE LARGEST > GROUP OF COMPETENT GMs AVAILABLE to increase the pool > of good potential RQ GMs. How available are these? How do we contact them? Most of these people will be out of the community where news about new games spread automatically, that's school and university. Most will now have families, time-consuming jobs, and no contact to gaming society. > I think there are a fair > number of people who have played for ten years, and > used to like RQ. As evidence I offer the ridiculous > prices being asked for RQ II and Cults of Prax in flea > markets, etc. Do you know the bidders? Take me, someone who contacted RQ first in 87, 3rd ed, and now rabid for the good ole stuph. > Melee and Wizard, DragonQuest, > Swordbearer, etc, also from the 78-82 era are not > similarly marked up. Pre-issue 90 White Dwarf get fantastic prices, too. > Given the small size of the > current RQ community, I think our fastest way to grow > is to entice some of these GM's back. How big was the RQ2 print run? How big was the RQ2 community? And how many of these still play RQ? > Group c) Those who saw only RQ III and did not like it, > is regrettably small. If there were more of them, more > copies of RQ III would have been sold. Jokes aside, I > am not pushing to recruit these people because most of > them have no sentimental attachment to RQ leading them > to buy the first copy of RQ IV. Also, they do not seem > to constitute a bloc with unified desires easily > understood by analysis. In Germany and lots of other countries, the majority of roleplayers belongs to this group. The roleplaying wave reached the non-English language countries around 1983, when RQ2 had run out and RQ3 was on the horizon. I'd guess that there are at least half as much English language copies of RQ sold in Germany (mostly the GW edition) as are German language ones (~3000, if my info is correct, the first print run in hardback has just been replaced by a softcover edition). Sweden, Finland, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium might amount to again half as much English copies. All these, and a lot of people using translations, will be interested in the new edition, and probably buy it. > Group d) New GM's, is where RQ's long run future has to > come from. But most GM's of any system start out as > players of that system, who for one reason or another > switch or resort to GMing. As such they are now, or > will first become, players in a group with a GM who has > already played RQ. This means they probably have to be > reached by a technique that appeals to existing GM's. This is the main American target group, and maybe the British and Australian, too. If RQ gets hot once again in the English language area, the rest will follow suit, but these form the primary market RQ4 needs to conquer. > Frankly, I tend to think an expensive basic book, which > people will bitch about and only buy one or two copies > per group of at first for evaluation purposes, is a > lesser evil than cutting a lot of the good stuff. > After all, AD&D is neither cheap nor short. Nor clear, or easy to play from the book alone. It does have a lot of back-up from similar computer games, from Nethack via Ultima to Pool of Radiance. Too bad Glorantha or RQ-like mechanics have no presence on that market. I have yet to see the rules to know what might be cut, but I wouldn't worry too much about volume. Look at the other successful systems on the market: Pendragon 4th ed and Ars Magica 3rd ed exploded in volume compared to previous editions, and Earthdawn does well with lots of pages, too, from what I hear. White Wolf storyteller games are weighty, too. What these games offer which the RQ3 AH rules don't are illustrations which (in some cases alone) prompt the customers to buy the rules. For RQ:AiG to be a success, the rules need interior artwork the quality of the RQ-Renaissance covers (Dorastor included, which would have looked even better if the window frames had been visible) as well as first class inks. -- 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 AA23211; Thu, 3 Feb 94 12:26:16 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA21601; Thu, 3 Feb 94 13:25:20 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 13:25:31 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 13:24:47 EST From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Yet another stab at ad copy Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 13:23:53 -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: <1F3FADA5F60@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Okay, now I'm going to re-revise the re-revision of the revision, just to be a pain. I severely cut the wordage--the rule I learned for grant pre- proposals (which are just special purpose advertisements) is that every unnecessary word drops your chance of acceptance by 5%. (Maybe a little steep, but I like the premise.) I also "stupified" the language, dropping gerunds and long words in favor of short synonyms or simpler verb forms and tried to make the language less intellectual and more visceral. Yes, there are a few places where the strict denotative meaning is a little obcure, but the impact is what is emphasized. (Example: I really rewrote the first sentence, what do I mean by "primal?"--let the psychoanalysts discuss that, I just wanna sell games.) More justifications to forestall critiques: I rearranged the order of a lot of stuff. The hype should all go first, the history afterwards. The reason: Those impressed by history and pedigree will wade through hype to see "what's really under the hood"; those impressed by hype have no patience for "dull stuff". Basically, I'm following the established principles of rhetoric--grab their attention with the short stuff and then squeeze for all it's worth. This means that you have to keep it short, keep it simple, keep it attention-getting. Remember, so long as it is honest, what it "means" is not necessarily as important as how it feels. Here goes: _______________________________________ Glorantha, one of the most complete and primal worlds of roleplaying, a labor of love by the same people who wrote Call of Cthulhu, Elric!, Pendragon, and DOOM!, has been updated and expanded for the roleplayer of today. RuneQuest: Adventures in Glorantha The Game of Mythic Roleplaying - Walk through a land of myth, armed and armored with the bones of the gods. - Uncover arcane, ancient magics - Probe forbidden secrets - Bring Lunar civilization to the savage Orlanthi hill tribes - Save your people from the decadent, chaos-embracing Lunar Empire. In the heart of Glorantha, in a land called Dragon Pass, dragons and giants so huge they are mistaken for mountains slumber away the centuries, awaiting a hero to wake them. Foul Broos and hungry Trolls prowl the hills, hunting farmers in their very homes. And in Boldhome, rebels plan daring strikes against the encroaching Empire. RuneQuest: Adventures in Glorantha is the perfect introduction to roleplaying in Glorantha. This game of mythic storytelling provides everything you need to begin your sagas in this magical world of wonders. Glorantha was discovered in 1965 by Greg Stafford. In 1978, the 1st edition of RuneQuest set the standard for other roleplaying games. RuneQuest brought roleplayers out of the dungeon and into the world of Glorantha, brimming with adventure, romance, tragedy, and slapstick comedy. The 2nd and 3rd editions of RuneQuest raised the stakes for organization and graphic presentation in roleplaying games. This 4th edition of RuneQuest continues the evolution of the game system. - It is now even easier to use Glorantha as a roleplaying setting. - This new edition remains consistent with the previous rules. If you have already been introduced to Glorantha, this edition of RuneQuest will bring you to a new level of understanding. If you have never seen Glorantha, within these pages you will discover a rich, satisfying setting with terrifying monsters, cruel enemies, generous friends, and the greatest scenery in the universe. _______________________________________ This game will also cure warts, remove unsightly blemishes, drive out fleas and cockroaches and increase anyone's sex appeal to truly aphroditic proportions.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA23637; Thu, 3 Feb 94 12:31:17 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA22112; Thu, 3 Feb 94 13:30:49 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 13:31:01 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 13:30:34 EST From: burt@tonto.ptltd.com (Burton Choinski) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Ad copy Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 13:30:16 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: <1F4138E35B0@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Much as I hate to, I must leave this discussion. I'm drowning in mail and not likely to provide much input without a hardcopy. Plus, I am sort of out of gaming mode. If some kind soul could mail me the listserver controll address, that would be great. Thanks for the discussion, guys. -- Burton  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA23811; Thu, 3 Feb 94 12:33:28 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA22322; Thu, 3 Feb 94 13:32:55 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 13:33:02 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 13:32:24 EST From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: evangelizing Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 13:32:09 -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: <1F41B6367E3@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Okay, the full poop on SJG's evangelicals vis GURPS and other products (taken straight from the SJG Gopher server--didn't know they had one, did you?): 1: SJG will do massive support for SJG events at conventions to the point of providing prizes, SJG promotional material, official AADA sanction for Car Wars, etc. They are also willing to see if they can get someone from SJG to the con--providing that the con pays the expenses of travel and lodgings etc. 2: SJG will match funds for any GURPS-related article published in any other wide-distribution professional magazine--what this means is that SJG will match what one is paid by, for example, Dragon Magazine for getting a GURPS article into that magazine. 3: SJG has excellent editors and art editors, who will brook no crap. (Not really "evangelical" but definitely something that SJG has in their favor.) Now, White Wolf could also bear looking into in the areas of marketing. (Certainly NOT in the areas of system design, writing, or editing.)  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA01515; Thu, 3 Feb 94 19:11:40 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA24969; Thu, 3 Feb 94 14:00:10 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 14:00:20 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 13:59:58 EST From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Ad copy Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 10:59:21 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: <1F491084E94@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Boris writes: > And for the graphic ... say have Larry Elmore (or someone with a similar > style) do a scene of a Bison Tribe Uroxi fighting a really horrible > looking broo, small and in the foreground. In the background, airbrushed > in all misty, have Storm Bull himself, bleeding on the ground with the > Devil standing over, with this *big* chunck of rock about to descend. > That should get some attention. An extremely graphic idea but it could be problematic. The fact that the embodiment of Chaos is called the Devil is bad enough but featuring him on the front cover, unless he looks like a toad or something totally undemonic, strikes me as a really bad idea. You guys have fundementalists in America and unless RQ:AiG is planned to be marketed on the publicity gained by being publicly declaimed by those who leap on band wagons this could could be a bad mistake. Even a bleeding Storm Bull could lead to allegations of advocations of self-imolation. Very unpleasant. This not to mentioning the all male combat scene with someone fighting a baltent and hideous monster. How about a party of experienced and varied troop of adventurers, from alligned Cults, in a very uneasy negotiation with a pack of Trolls, complete with attendent Trollkin. This might put forward an important part of RuneQuest, that monsters are people too and essentially evil in their nature as they are in some other backgrounds. You could go to town on all the trappings of both sides to reflect the richness of the Gloranthan background. Feature runes, really lived in armour and other personal and heraldic effects. Regards -- Guy Robinson --  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA00377; Wed, 2 Feb 94 21:58:56 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA09886; Wed, 2 Feb 94 22:58:41 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 22:58:51 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 22:58:36 EST From: graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: game size Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 14:07:39 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: <1E58AD1374E@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David Dunham writes: > > John Medway replied to me: > >I dunno if this is a real problem. Look at the size of Champions or the > >new version of GURPS. They're pretty sizeable too. Doesn't seem to slow > >sales too much. > > I could argue that the 120 page RQ2 was more popular than the 280 page RQ3... And I could argue that the ~500 page AD&D 1st edition (DM Guide, Monster Manual and Players Handbook) was the most successful FRPG of all. You needed all three books to play. > > Maybe I'm wrong, but _I'm_ put off by huge works, and I'm a fairly > dedicated gamer. Would you become a gamer if you thought you had to read a > 300 page tome? If you weren't a gamer, would you be more interested in > becoming one if you had to buy a $15 book or a $30 book? I _like_ the bigger books. When I look at a new game, I prefer to see a 300 page book to a 150 page. I especially like knowing I'll get a complete game without having to fork out for supplements. Also, in Australia, the difference is more like a A$35-A$40 vs A$50-A$60 for what we have to fork out. (The first price is what Dorastor is selling for now; the second is what the EarthDawn book is costing). Price doesn't seem to scale linearly with page number. Of course, the original RQ3 came out costing A$80. That's about US$55, at the current rate of exchange. I suspect RQ won't be attracting new gamers directly, at least not unless it becomes a really big hit. Non gamers have usually only ever heard of AD&D, or are introduced to gaming by someone else. 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 AA27890; Thu, 3 Feb 94 13:08:42 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25783; Thu, 3 Feb 94 14:08:25 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 14:08:37 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 14:08:24 EST From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Sorcery Range Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 14:08:16 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: <1F4B4FF068C@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> I think we must have run some things differently. I thought that concentration for sorcery dictated at best a slow walk, but you write: >Even worse when mounts or Haste spells >were used, allowing them to keep their distance (this occured mostly >on the Pamaltelan veldt, and also in the Wastes with some Kralori If your campaign allowed casting while galloping away from charging enemies, we certainly were running sorcery differently! We had some Western battles with the sorcerers hanging back in a 'baggage-train' type of situation, they were relatively immobile. Church-supported tradition dictated that they not be attacked. (Outland PC mercenaries violated this though...) Anyway, under my assumption of slow-moving sorcerers, let's look at a charging enemy closing on them: 200 to 500 meters - this is Range 5, no? Usually needed at least Intensity 5 to do anything that would quickly take someone down. Thus, 10 SR casting time + Dex SR. Only 50% of a sorceror's spells work, roughly (unlike divine magic.) So at this range, only one spell per 25 Strike Ranks hits a closing enemy. And you still have to overcome their MPs. At infantry charge rate (6m /strike rank), in 25 strike ranks the infantry crosses 150 meters, so the sorcerer gets in about one successful cast before they close to missile range, two before they get to melee range. Cavalry charges are worse - a sorcerer will be lucky to get off one successful spell. Adepts can do better, of course. Anyway, this doesn't seem too bad. Oh, and each of these long range spells burns off ten or twelve MPs. Can't do too many of those. Ship to ship combat is different, the captain and crew handle the movement so the sorcerer can sit at long range for a long time. This doesn't seem too bad to me. We have some rules about magic crossing water that might come into play here. Concerning long distance communication: Yes, it's unbalancing. The other systems have it as well, tthough: A shaman can send long distance magical messages - consider a spirit with 15 POW, its service being to carry a message. Can cover 1080 km in a day under RQ3 rules. Temples have long distance communication as well (divination). How we solved it in my campaign: We ruled rivers and oceans and mountain ranges and storms and fires (the powerful elemental forces) are magical barriers, adding to the Intensity needed to punch a spell through them Thus Orlanthi attack under cover of storms, etc. It's hard to scry over the oceans, especially during the Closing. Trying to Teleport over the ocean (without Open Seas, at least) would bring the same sort of trouble as taking a ship out. >Did you run mostly city based or forest area campaigns? A mixture of terrain types, probably more city and forest than plains, but plenty of other things as well. With long-range sorcery and Sympathetic Targetting, people were really worried about their hair and nails falling into the wrong hands. It sounds as if most of the Range problems were with quick-cast spells. How about using linear range for quick-cast and exponential range for rituals (at one hour per point of cast). This is competitive with the rate at which shamans can send spirits - in the example above a shaman could send a spirit a thousand kilometers in a day. On the old exponential table, a ranged spell (as to send a message, Intensity 1 sound illusion or telepathy) with a range of 1000 km would take 17 hours to cast, not far off from the shaman's rate. And if you add in the 'natural forces are a barrier to magic and require extra Intensity to punch through' you get some pretty interesting effects. - Paul Reilly  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA29220; Thu, 3 Feb 94 13:28:08 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA27151; Thu, 3 Feb 94 14:24:18 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 14:28:01 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 14:23:44 EST From: "Loren J. Miller" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Sorcery Range Date: 03 Feb 1994 14:21:27 -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: <1F4F67F077B@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Oliver writes: > Medium to long range seemed the worst (200 to 500 meters), as it allowed > sorcerers to stay out of missile and spirit or divine magic spell range, > yet fire off their own spells. Even worse when mounts or Haste spells > were used, allowing them to keep their distance (this occured mostly > on the Pamaltelan veldt, and also in the Wastes with some Kralori > characters. On smooth terrain, unaided sight can distinguish figures > out to a kilometer - add in vision enhancing spells and it gets worse. The problem is that extended range is definitely something that Sorcery can do. Just look at Zzzzabur's antics, or at the tales of sorcery in our own legends, or at what Milamber did in Ray Feist's books. One of RQ's meta-rules is to value versimillitude over game balance, and I think it should remain that way, so keep the exponential range manipulation. To control the use of Range in these big-sky settings change the societal rules, not the game rules. Range manipulation would be a skill restricted to wizards whom the king can trust. This skill allows wizards to be walking artillery platforms, and should be restricted just like any other military secret. Sorcery needs some kind of context like this, even if we don't have room for the whole shebang. 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 AA29597; Thu, 3 Feb 94 13:31:47 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA27737; Thu, 3 Feb 94 14:31:38 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 14:31:43 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 14:31:10 EST From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: game size Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 14:31:08 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: <1F51639503A@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Paul Reilly here. Ray Turney has some convincing arguments for why SOrcery should be in RQ:AiG. I think I'm convinced. If it is included, let's make sure people are happy with it. How many people are playtesting the Sorcery rules? Oh, and count me in the 'preserve some compatibilty' camp, for rules that weren't broken. We should try not to lose the RQ3 GMs mentioned by Ray as part of the market. - Paul  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA29783; Thu, 3 Feb 94 13:34:05 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA27930; Thu, 3 Feb 94 14:33:45 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 14:33:57 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 14:33:31 EST From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Thoughts on Combat in RQ:AiG from George Harris Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 14:33:16 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: <1F520286FE6@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> ----- Begin Included Message ----- >Favor reduction of number of combat skills by elimination of weapon >specificty. - Ray Turney Agree. -Paul Reilly, who has fought in SCA for 16 years and has picked up many oddball weapons & been able to use them with 5 minutes practice.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA29881; Thu, 3 Feb 94 13:35:24 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA28053; Thu, 3 Feb 94 14:35:14 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 14:35:20 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 14:35:00 EST From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Sorcery Range Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 14:34:53 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: <1F52692774A@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Agree with Graeme's analysis. The Mostali _do_ have some network; the Nidan Mountains give orders to dwarf colonies 1000's of km away.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA03284; Thu, 3 Feb 94 19:45:13 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA28413; Thu, 3 Feb 94 14:41:10 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 14:41:16 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 14:40:48 EST From: wire@world.std.com (A Son of the Silent Age) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: unsubscribe Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 14:40:31 -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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1F53F566AA7@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> unsubscribe wire@world.std.com (sorry...I'm really interested, but there's just too damn much volume...) doug  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA02708; Thu, 3 Feb 94 13:58:56 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA29779; Thu, 3 Feb 94 14:58:44 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 14:58:51 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 14:58:30 EST From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: RE: Doubling and skills Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 14:58:27 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: <1F58AE359F7@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> jacobus writes: >I think I'll pull out me spreadsheet and run some math to see just what the >roll 2d6 take the higher/roll 2d6 take the lower actually comes out to be. Here is a breakdown Probability of rolling a High roll Low Roll 6: 11/36 1/36 5: 9/36 3/36 4: 7/36 5/36 3: 5/36 7/36 2: 3/36 9/36 1: 1/36 11/36 Mean: 161/36=4.47222... 91/36 = 2.52777... Mean for 1d6 = 3.5 -paul reilly  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA04434; Thu, 3 Feb 94 19:57:46 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01106; Thu, 3 Feb 94 15:12:18 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 15:12:29 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 15:12:02 EST From: "Loren J. Miller" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Artwork for advert Date: 03 Feb 1994 15:09:59 -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: <1F5C4A20E2E@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Rather than another martial scene to attract the Warmallet kids, why not use Griselda and Wolfhead stealing into a troll hideaway, or some such scene? Emphasize something besides butchery to attract women to the game. -- Loren  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA03093; Wed, 2 Feb 94 22:48:02 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA11904; Wed, 2 Feb 94 23:47:47 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 23:47:52 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 23:47:40 EST From: graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Second Thoughts on RQ:AiG from George Harris Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 15:45:56 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: <1E65C3513E3@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> George W. Harris writes: > Two: universal application. One thing that the Pendragon >system doesn't do well is deal with skills greater than 100%. >Say, I have a skill of 95%, and Joe Blow has a skill of 250% (in, >say, Maneuver). I'm (sensibly) trying to disengage. I roll an >89, and Joe rolls an 88. Now, in the Pendragon system, I'll win >this contest about 1/4 the time. In "make it by the most," >however, I don't do nearly as well, winning only about 11% of the >time. I think the latter figure best reflects the wide disparity >in the skill levels. Let's see, convert to Pendragon, you have 19 skill, Joe Blow has 50 skill. You roll d20 and try to get 19 or less, Joe rolls d20 and adds 30 to the result. Highest roll wins ===> You Lose! I take it you mean "using highest roll under skill" to mean "Pendragon System". Pendragon itself gives skills above 100% a much greater advantage than RQ does. 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 AA04190; Wed, 2 Feb 94 23:08:24 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA12717; Thu, 3 Feb 94 00:08:13 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 0:08:23 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 0:08:10 EST From: graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Sorcery Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 16:06:08 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: <1E6B37E29E5@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Oliver J. writes: >Essentially, >a manipulation called maintain allows you to maintain extended spells >(of roughly up to skill/10 in Intensity, twice that amount with a >familiar) A few question from the RQ:AIG (aside: I think it's a fine name!) deprived: a)Do you mean "A number of spells equal to Maintain/10, each with a strength of Intensity/10" or "maintain spells with a total combined Intensity of Maintain/10" b) Are familiars still meant to be Gloranthan canon for Western Wizards? I've always found them inappropriate for the West. >In addition, through the expenditure of 1 point of POW, >you can add another extended spell (through Maintain or Duration). Is maintain permanent? >In >addition to changes to specific sorcery spells (ie many are Easy skills), >it is much harder for spirit or divine magicians to obtain large >cult or spirit magic spells Both of these changes are good news, especially the second. Bladesharp 7 can really unbalance the game. Thanks for the info. 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 AA09752; Thu, 3 Feb 94 15:07:21 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA05866; Thu, 3 Feb 94 16:07:07 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 16:07:12 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 16:07:01 EST From: Raymond D Turney To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Thoughts on Combat in RQ:AiG from George Harris Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 13:06:54 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1F6AF41218E@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> To Paul Reilly, thanks for the support on sorcery and weapon specificity. That post was a little long given the amount of email on this, so my critic has a good point there.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA10151; Thu, 3 Feb 94 15:13:22 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA06304; Thu, 3 Feb 94 16:13:12 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 16:13:20 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 16:12:59 EST From: Raymond D Turney To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Do RQ2 players want Sorcery? Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 13:12:51 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1F6C8AD1D67@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> So long as your for adding sorcery, I do not care what convinces you. Thanks for reading my posting.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA07034; Wed, 2 Feb 94 23:44:52 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AB14158; Thu, 3 Feb 94 00:44:38 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 0:44:47 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 0:44:09 EST From: Tim Leask To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Changes for changes sake ? Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 16:43:55 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: <1E74D1178DA@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David Cake writes: > I am even more vehemently opposed to the changes to armor, damage, > weapon damage, hit locations. I seem to be in the minority, as many people > just see a new pretty mechanic that seem to help (not solve) some problems, > but I see a compatibility disaster, the need to reissue every adventure, or > have glaring (as opposed to minor) inconsistencies. > I seem to be in a minority (most people liked the new damage system > when first mooted here), but I think that it is an incredibly short sighted > approach. The new damage system is better than RQ2/3, but changes like that are > more appropriate to new games, rather than new editions (unless you are a > biggy like TSR and have the market share and staff to reissue everything). I agree wholeheartedly with David on this issue. The things that (IMHO) NEED fixing from RQ3 are: Sorcery Fatigue Character Generation Economics Other improvements should only be made if they have minimal incompatibility with published material. This would mean that if existing players don't like the new way something is done they can continue using the old way without much trouble. Cheers, Tim Leask ================================================================================ Department of Computer Science /*\__/\ "Money is something you have in University of Melbourne < \ case you don't die tomorrow." Parkville, Vic., 3052, AUSTRALIA \ _ _/ Gordon Gecko. Phone: +61 3 282 2439 \| -- e-mail: tsl@cs.mu.oz.au ================================================================================  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA16859; Thu, 3 Feb 94 16:14:25 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA11534; Thu, 3 Feb 94 17:14:14 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 17:14:21 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 17:14:00 EST From: David Cheng To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Ad copy Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 17:12:03 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: <1F7CD080D27@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> # And for the graphic ... say have Larry Elmore (or someone with a similar # style) do a scene of a Bison Tribe Uroxi fighting a really horrible # looking broo, small and in the foreground. In the background, airbrushed # in all misty, have Storm Bull himself, bleeding on the ground with the # Devil standing over, with this *big* chunck of rock about to descend. # # That should get some attention. # ---- # Boris No,no,no... Larry Elmore would never consent to doing a cover where there were no scantily-clad, perfectly-toned women. -DC  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA17851; Thu, 3 Feb 94 16:30:14 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA12553; Thu, 3 Feb 94 17:29:57 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 17:30:09 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 17:29:51 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Fastdraw; Sorcery; Armour; newcomers Date: Thu, 03 Feb 1994 14:29:41 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: <1F810A92F5F@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> I've been posting an awful lot lately; I'll try to cut back. David Cake: >> > bring back the >> >fastdraw skill. I never had, heard or saw any complaints >> >> I guess I never complained publicly. It was definitely a cool idea, but it >> Didn't Work. It was really messy, especially for GMs trying to accurately >> run a group of archers. My players all loved it, I (as GM) hated it. >> >I have no complaints - but my player that uses it is not a bowman. Why not >just remove it for missile weapons? (but allow it for thrown). >Anyone have any problems with it other than with bows? Fastdraw for melee weapons would be OK; you'd have to state that it's rolled at the same time as the attack (NOT at the end of the previous round) and would negate the 3 SR (or if we simplified to Elric's rule, DEX Ranks) penalty for the attack. Joerg: >If you play a character from Seshnela or Loskalm, and you don't use >sorcery, you don't use magic. Is this appropriate for Glorantha? No. But RQ:AiG is not necessarily the only rules you'd need to play in arbitrary parts of Glorantha (AiG is really Adventures in Dragon Pass). You might also need "Wizards of the West." The lack of sorcery in a new product wouldn't affect new players at all. It would affect us RQ3 players, but we could continue to use RQ3 sorcery until WotW came out. (Note that from discussion with Oliver, it's highly likely that sorcery will remain in AiG.) Malcolm Cohen: >However, RQ3 made armour much more effective than in RQ2 and also increased the >average damage bonus. I did not like the results; that lightly armoured >characters are not as viable as they were in RQ2 Ah, I hadn't thought of that, but you remove all lingering doubts about the incompatibility of the new damage & armor rules. David Cheng: >While I agree with the thought that we have to sell to new players to >succeed, ... >RQ:AiG has to appeal to as many of us old-timers as possible, as we're >going to be the ones out there evangelizing it. If _we_ don't have >99% faith in the quality of the product, it won't move. Agreed, but we're probably looking for different things (like a better RQ) than people who don't know the game (who'd just be looking for a cool game in a great setting). We know Glorantha, so we crave more details. A newcomer might well be snowed by them. RQ:AiG may not be a radical change for us RQ players, but it will be for AD&D players! Paul Reilly: If 2d6/worst and 2d6/best give a mean of only +- 1 from 1d6, they're probably not the way to handle Hard and Easy skill increase. Too bad.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA19930; Thu, 3 Feb 94 16:50:39 -0600 Return-Path: <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA14243; Thu, 3 Feb 94 17:50:24 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 17:50:34 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 17:50:08 EST From: Nick Brooke <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Three-Bean Binders Date: 03 Feb 94 17:36:19 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: <1F867423A15@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Devin Cutler said: > My vote for format would be ... three ring binder format Excuse me while I laugh hysterically. This is a running joke here in the UK (which is to say, for something like half the market for English language RuneQuest). At conventions, you would be laughed off stage for proposing it. > I know we are trying to integrate Glorantha into the rules this time, > but obviously, the world of Glorantha is too voluminous to even begin > to include in a set of core rules. Why try? Because it's there, and it's possible. It's only "obviously" impossible to you, but then your priorities are different from most of the contributors'. Maybe if we cut the rules for 1000%+ skills and Martial Arts duels against Cwim, we can find room for even more Gloranthan background... > Simply have the core rules give the nuts and bolts of Gloranatha (the > cults, the monsters, etc) and leave the cultural/philosophical/ > socialogical aspects to supplements. You think that'll sell new players on the world background? And if not, what's the point? ==== Nick ====  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA02143; Fri, 4 Feb 94 00:07:28 -0600 Return-Path: <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA16073; Thu, 3 Feb 94 18:17:50 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 18:17:55 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 18:17:41 EST From: Nick Brooke <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: "Aim" battle magic Date: 03 Feb 94 17:55:34 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: <1F8DCE6386B@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Joerg DM 0.02'd: > A reversed shimmer spell would be nasty, too, and certainly a trickster > spell. "aim" or something, also good for hunting. And needs to overcome > MP for living targets. Might work for one hit location only? I'll certainly add my tuppence to that! What a fine spell for all kinds of users. Should it be Temporal (say +5% per point for any missile to hit for the next 5 minutes), or Transient (+15% per point for the next shot only)? This is neat, like those old Mostali grenade matrix spells -- why cast Speedart on your one-shot missile when you can cast it on the target and keep plugging away? Probably a Hunter cult spell only. Probably not for the basic rulebook. ==== Nick ====  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA14259; Thu, 3 Feb 94 01:43:55 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA17486; Thu, 3 Feb 94 02:43:48 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 2:43:53 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 2:43:37 EST From: graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Sorcery Range Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 18:42:13 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: <1E94AF6451D@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Oliver J writes: > Medium to long range seemed the worst (200 to 500 meters), as it allowed > sorcerers to stay out of missile and spirit or divine magic spell range, > yet fire off their own spells. Even worse when mounts or Haste spells > were used, allowing them to keep their distance (this occured mostly > on the Pamaltelan veldt, and also in the Wastes with some Kralori > characters. On smooth terrain, unaided sight can distinguish figures > out to a kilometer - add in vision enhancing spells and it gets worse. I admit I did see such behaviour in Griffin Island, but I doubt it's going to be as much of a problem with Range/10 manipulation limit, and spell/5 limit. The sorcerers won't have 15-18 points of manipulation to play round with. The spell it was worst with was Smother, which has been changed. > > A few playtesters playing pirate, East Isles or a trade expedition campaign > (I think) also complained about ship to ship range when one side had > sorcery and the other did not. > Well that's the advantage of having Sorcery, isn't it? A shaman using spirits can attack at long range too, though it's easier to defend against the spirits. > A more pressing concern is the use of spells such as Teleport and > Homing Circle (or Sight Illusion) to transmit information (or passengers) Actually Telepathy is the obvious spell for messages. Good for party communications as well. > over large distances instantaneously. I don't see the Imperial Mail > as being quite that fast. These don't need much targeting, even at > extreme ranges. It already exists: in WoG it says that Temples have a means of long range communication, which I suspect means Divination. Shamans can communicate by friendly spirits, or at worst discorporate and carry the message themselves. Anyway, the Range/10 limit means that 100% Range skill would get you a maximum Range of 10 * 2^10 metres = 10.24 km. Enough to move around a city or a nearby domain, but not to set up a continent spanning mail network. (The people with 200% skill who could set it up are too busy running Brithos or having doctrinal disputes in the West; I think the Mostali _should_ have such networks) 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 AA03134; Thu, 3 Feb 94 19:43:27 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA23930; Thu, 3 Feb 94 20:43:03 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 20:43:13 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 20:42:49 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: RQ:AiG nitpicked some more Date: Thu, 03 Feb 1994 17:42:39 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: <1FB48293903@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> The term "Mechanics" bothers me; it's awfully game-speak-y. Maybe you could call it "Procedures?" (E.g. "Procedure for Power Gain" rather than "Mechanic of Power Gain.") 115 The Aldryami Arrows mention ignoring hit modifiers from vegetation. That's easy to do, since no such modifiers exist. 115 I like the fact that enchanters can limit their enchantments for free -- at least to themselves. This helps with the tattoo problem ("he's got a matrix, skin him!"). Would it be too generous to make the free limit on the _recipient_ of the enchantment? Given that every spirit magic spell has the God Learner name as a common name, redefine the italic entry to be "other common names" and delete the standard one from the italics. In several cases, this will give you a line back. 119 More terminology problems: Control talks about spirit magicians using Control spells to force spirits into binding enchantments. But spirit magicians make Spirit Traps. It's priests and sorcerers who have the Binding Enchantment spell. 119 The sentences about Bladesharp and Bludgeon increasing critical chance are true but misleading. Depending on the character's skill, and where it rounds, a single point of the spell might increase the critical chance. Simply say "+5 percentiles (affecting the chance to special or critical)" which is shorter. 119 You've made it sound like Coordination can't change Melee SR. 120 Detect Antelope is the laughing stock of my campaign. I don't see how your Detect Bison is any better -- it's still a Ranged spell. Or did you mean that Detect and Detect work at any range (different from other Detect spells)? 121 The description of Fanaticism leaves a hole; if someone is in melee combat but is defending not against his melee opponent but against missile fire, then what? (Or, someone is moving, without any foes; is his Dodge affected?) 121 Does a Heal 9 heal 2 points of general hit points, or 1? (You should probably drop "(or greater)" which leads to this confusion.) 122 As GM, I HATE Lightwall. My players have it, and they also have arrows. This means that opponents have to charge in blindly, receiving arrow hits, or run away out of arrow range, still receiving arrow hits (the new MV rates may help slightly). Maybe nobody else has problems with it, but I don't like it. It makes 100 m^2 of light, which usually ends up as something 3 metres high and 33 in circumference. 122 Instead of "language sent," shouldn't Mindspeech be "language whispered"? 122 So even if someone is using Second Sight, a troll could cover itself with a blanket and not be seen, and attack the magician? Do you normally see someone's aura only through the eyeslits of their helmet? 123 So Slow 5 will pin most humans, with no chance of moving? Surely you can come up with a way to integrate running (trading actions) and the new Fatigue system (even tho said system is technically optional). 173 So Resist Damage prevents critical hits from landing (unlike all other physically protective spells)? If so, you should say so explicitly, otherwise "any physical and magical armor" could be presumed to include R.D. 177 Regain Life: In RQ, if you can sever it, it's probably a limb, not an organ. (Ignoring Malign Earth goddesses...) 195 Can a horse kick a fallen target? (Did you mean "can only trample" or "can trample only" is the queston.) 199 There is no hit location table for centaurs. (There are no centaurs in the game, but since you've changed all the other tables, you probably have to provide the new centaur table, too. Centaurs are much more common than ducks as PCs in Seattle, for what it's worth...) 205 The Kralori calendar can be deleted from this work. I'll be playing tonight (as opposed to GMing), so should have more questions/comments. 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 AA20930; Thu, 3 Feb 94 04:14:47 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA20342; Thu, 3 Feb 94 05:14:39 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 5:14:45 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 5:14:36 EST From: graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Sorcery, Re: Recent comments Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 21:13:36 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: <1EBCF3A2524@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> This is Graeme replying to Joerg replying to me replying to David Cake replying to Oliver... > > Well if they aren't made significantly more effective, either by having > > better spells or less skills (say the skill Tap to tap any stat, or Enhance > > to replace the various Enhance (Characteristic) spells), then I doubt that > > there would be any Sorcery in Glorantha. > > If coupled with some knowledge of the target condition (in your example > characteristic) only. (Although the fairly common Tap INT would be > coupled to the extremely uncomon Increase INT). This works better for > the , or variations of certain spells. I was thinking of something more like this: Form/Set would be a single spell, with modifier to the skill dependent on the material ie Water +20% Soft Wood 0 Hard Wood -10% Bronze -20% Granite -40% Iron -80% etc This would modify the manipulation limit as well as chance of success One other reason I like this is to simplify characters: it's easier to record and keep track of Form/Set 86% than Form/Set Wood 92, Form/Set Bronze 70, Form/Set Water 30, Form/Set Iron 12 etc. Same for Tap: Pow 0%, Dex -10%, Int -30% etc. > Were you thinking of something more like what Burton Choinski (sp?) proposed a few months back, with spells like Form/Set matched with knowledge skill like Iron Lore, > > Limited agreement from my side. I repeat myself, but for Mostali the > stabilize spells are perfectly valid, e.g. because they get an > automatic annual POW increase for behaving as part of the machine (by > casting their stabilize spell). This could work for human sorcerers as > well. What Oliver posted earlier actually sounds quite good: Sorcery spells are now much more the equal of spirit magic point for point, and high point spirit magic spells are harder to get. Combined with making most sorcery spells easy, this gives much more of a reason to learn sorcery, and a reason for it to exist in Glorantha. The need to keep long duration that I saw has diminished, though not quite gone - it was one of the things that really distinguished sorcery from the other types of magic. > > If the POW expenditure is kept, the sorcerer certainly ought to become I still really don't like the Pow expenditure much. 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 AA04351; Fri, 4 Feb 94 00:24:51 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA27590; Thu, 3 Feb 94 22:05:55 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 22:06:01 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 22:05:46 EST From: Carl Fink To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Sorcery Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 22:05:21 -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: <1FCAA1B1726@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Graeme Lindsell writes in part: G> The lack of a social aspect for sorcery is a defect IMHO, when they >are meant to be the priests in Western culture. Um, that's backwards. Sorcery isn't designed to be a priest's magic. It just so happens that some sorcery-users are priests, but most sorcerers in Glorantha are not.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA09974; Thu, 3 Feb 94 21:06:14 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA27599; Thu, 3 Feb 94 22:06:03 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 22:06:11 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 22:05:58 EST From: Carl Fink To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: duplicates Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 22:05:28 -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: <1FCAAF614B7@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Loren, I'm drowning in mail! I had 100 RQ-PLAYTEST messages in my mailbox this evening, about half duplicates or triplicates, some from yesterday. Is there anything to be done about this? 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 AA10126; Thu, 3 Feb 94 21:06:27 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA27617; Thu, 3 Feb 94 22:06:13 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 22:06:19 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 22:05:59 EST From: Carl Fink To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Sorcery Range Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 22:05:45 -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: <1FCAB076A2B@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Loren Miller writes: M>The problem is that extended range is definitely something that >Sorcery can do. Just look at Zzzzabur's antics, or at the tales of >sorcery in our own legends, or at what Milamber did in Ray Feist's >books. One of RQ's meta-rules is to value versimillitude over game >balance, and I think it should remain that way, so keep the >exponential range manipulation. To control the use of Range in these >big-sky settings change the societal rules, not the game rules. Range >manipulation would be a skill restricted to wizards whom the king can >trust. This skill allows wizards to be walking artillery platforms, >and should be restricted just like any other military secret. M>Sorcery needs some kind of context like this, even if we don't have >room for the whole shebang. "...sorcery in our own legends" does essentially anything, Loren. You could justify any power or ability that way, by picking the legendary or fictional sorcerer carefully. Should RQ sorcerers move backward through time like White's Merlin? The long range of Zzabur's Closing is more a Heroquest type thing -- that is, it's possible, but not covered by the RQ rules any more than they cover controlling the Faceless Statue. 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 AA05371; Fri, 4 Feb 94 00:36:49 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA27627; Thu, 3 Feb 94 22:06:21 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 22:06:26 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 22:06:00 EST From: Carl Fink To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Thoughts on Combat in RQ:AiG from George Harris Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 22:05:47 -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: <1FCAB1A78F3@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David Cake writes in part; D>> >Carl Fink says the reason for switching to >> >a unified hit location table is to save time and space. How much >> >space does it take? Five columns in a single table. What's the >> >time difference between diversified and unified hit locations in >> >a melee? Probably less than a quarter the difference between >> >unified hit locations and no hit locations at all. >> >Can I just make the plea for compatibility again? Um, compatability with what? I just don't understand this comment, sorry.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA19582; Thu, 3 Feb 94 21:20:51 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA28432; Thu, 3 Feb 94 22:20:38 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 22:20:45 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 22:20:21 EST From: Raymond D Turney To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: game size Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 19:20:18 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1FCE85C4EFE@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> My feeling is that RQ IV should be long enough to include all of the good stuff, but it should include only the good stuff. For example, RQ IV AiG cuts Ducks, and a lot of people like to play Ducks. On the other hand it keeps more than a page of rules on grappling, which I have very seldom seen used. I'm for restoring Ducks but cutting grappling; on the theory that grappling seldom comes up, is not needed to understand the rest of the rules etc, and basically no one loves it. Ducks on the other hand ... {sigh}, I'm an anti-duck man myself. Why is Craft the art of commanding a ship with a crew of more than two included in the rules? As best I can make out it is the only reference to ships, and is not critical to survival in our focus area of Dragon Pass/Prax. Bat Mastery on the other hand ... a skill your character seldom needs but when he needs it nothing else will quite do. Jokes aside, I think the question of what to cut has to dealt with at a much lower level than, We Should Cut Sorcery vs. We Shouldn't Cut Sorcery. Each of these areas is a lot of little decisions and there is not much time before projected release.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA26750; Thu, 3 Feb 94 22:34:06 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA02305; Thu, 3 Feb 94 23:33:54 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 23:34:02 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 23:33:45 EST From: jjm@zycor.lgc.com (johnjmedway) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: re: Do RQ2 players want Sorcery? Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 22:31:31 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: <1FE21923E95@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >> From: Nick Brooke <100270.337@compuserve.com> >> Subject: Do RQ2 players want Sorcery? >> Date: 03 Feb 94 02:48:16 EST >> >> The feeling I got over here was that more people were disappointed by the >> introduction of Sorcery than by the generally crappy rules associated with >> it. RQ had always had a distinctive flavour, and now here was this generic >> ... >> required large amounts of work to update existing games, and you had a >> terrible mixture for disillusion. >> >> Maybe things were different in the States. No. That pretty much sums it up for me. We were able to modify sorcery for playing in Tekumel, as we had a context for it. They would have been useless for playing in Glorantha, before the Genertela box. Begin pro Dragon Pass / Anti-Sorcery quasi-polemic: To be honest, I found most of the rest of the lands described in the Genertela box fairly uninteresting. The West seemed too close to a hodge- podge of feudal Europe, complete with the monolithic church/philosophy. I'd rather play Pendragon, at least until someone convinces me otherwise. As for the East, hmm, sounds like India and China and Japan to me. Been to Japan in games, though not China or India. Still, it just didn't work any real interest up in me. Mix of not enough detail, and seeming too derivative. Not that some parts of Dragon Pass and the Empire aren't derivative. Sure quite a bit of the Graeco-Roman world was copped for the Lunars. And the Celts for the Orlanthi. Nevertheless, RQ in Dragon Pass seems less like all of the other plate-armor for everyone but the monk RPGs out there, partly because Greg copped things others hadn't. As for the West, and it's sorcerors. I would need some real strong arguments, such as a Malkion Pack, before I showed any real interest. That essentially means I'll probably have little use for the Sorcery rules, and would not mind cutting them. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 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 AA00944; Thu, 3 Feb 94 23:48:11 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA05721; Fri, 4 Feb 94 00:47:58 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 4 Feb 94 0:48:07 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 4 Feb 94 0:47:56 EST From: jjm@zycor.lgc.com (johnjmedway) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Ad copy Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 23:45:40 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: <1FF5E1C533A@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >> From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com >> Subject: Re: Ad copy >> Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 10:59:21 PST >> >> How about a party of experienced and varied troop of adventurers, from >> alligned Cults, in a very uneasy negotiation with a pack of Trolls, >> complete with attendent Trollkin. This might put forward an important >> part of RuneQuest, that monsters are people too and essentially evil >> in their nature as they are in some other backgrounds. This sounds like a neat idea. Maybe a scene with an Argan Argar waving his Kaarg's Sons buddies off, while looking dubiously at the humans. Another thing on art: This has to look *great*. Hopefully AH will spring for the cash for the guy who did all of the RQ-Renaissance covers until Dorastor ( Raupp, right? ). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 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 AA05418; Fri, 4 Feb 94 00:39:59 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA07519; Fri, 4 Feb 94 01:39:48 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 4 Feb 94 1:39:55 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 4 Feb 94 1:39:41 EST From: Anthony Ragan To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Artwork for advert Date: Thu, 03 Feb 94 22:39 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: <2003AFA4AC4@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > Rather than another martial scene to attract the Warmallet > kids, why not use Griselda and Wolfhead stealing into a > troll hideaway, or some such scene? Emphasize something > besides butchery to attract women to the game. > Assuming the "Warmallet" crack refers to Warhammer, can we avoid the cheap shots at other games, please? Both RQ and WFRP are among my favorite systems, and there's nothing to be gained by taking gratuitous shots at other systems. (Prickly mode off) Well, I doubt I'm on the list to receive a copy of RQ:AiG, but I think the art should be no problem. There's no shortage of execellent artists out there, and Glorantha prvides plenty of great scenes for an artist. How about a scene amongst the ruins of Pavis? SOmething like the cover of Shadows on the Border would be great, too. --Anthony ecz5rar@mvs.oac.ucla.edu -OR- IrishSpy@aol.com Rune Chia Pet of Ernalda Snotling in Chief Caravan Bug Caravanmaster  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA07985; Fri, 4 Feb 94 01:44:30 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA09231; Fri, 4 Feb 94 02:44:14 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 4 Feb 94 2:44:28 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 4 Feb 94 2:43:50 EST From: devinc@aol.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Too Many Postings Date: Fri, 04 Feb 94 02:49:08 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: <2014C932549@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Can we try to limit postings to one per person? It took me over an hour and a half to read my postings yesterday, and may of these involved a few persons sending something like 5 or 6 postings. This is mine for today. Devin Cutler devinc@aol.com  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA09486; Fri, 4 Feb 94 02:09:30 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA10059; Fri, 4 Feb 94 03:09:13 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 4 Feb 94 3:09:21 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 4 Feb 94 3:09:02 EST From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Warmallet/Warhammer Market in the UK Date: Fri, 4 Feb 1994 00:07:38 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: <201B83E58ED@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Quick cultural reference: Warhammer in the UK is the War Game rather than the roleplaying game. The role playing game exist but most 13-16 years old would not consider it. Warhammer is massively hyped with the purpose of selling figures, which bear a large profit margin. The Games Workshop shops actually have space for battles to be played out to encourage purchases. The former roleplaying magazine, White Dwarf, is nothing more than a glorified figures catalog, constantly pluging new rules and encouraging obsolesence in everything eg. you have have to be up to date and that cost dearly. That magazine used to be the UK's premier RPG organ. How can role playing games penetrate that market? White Dwarf features a lot of fiction which stimulates interest among the readership and inspires them but the rub is that the only means of expressing this is by buying figures and painting them in the right manner. This fiction could be applied to RuneQuest as the background is even richer than the Warhammer 40K background. Even better the focus would be on avoid conflict as much as being involved in it. The same audience would respond well if they could learn to express their empathy with that fiction in a roleplaying game. I would suggest that you present the core materials to attract a broader balanced market and then target the Warhammer war games players with advertising. Imagine telling an adolesent male that he could play a game and achieve victory as a group without the risk of another member of his peer group having the satisfaction of beating him. Imagine the discovery of find that good detail is thicker than a coat of paint exclusively available from Games Workshop... Regards -- Guy Robinson --  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA09949; Fri, 4 Feb 94 02:32:26 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA10696; Fri, 4 Feb 94 03:32:08 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 4 Feb 94 3:32:22 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 4 Feb 94 3:31:58 EST From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Ray Turney's market analysis Date: Fri, 4 Feb 1994 00:31:20 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: <2021A1179A9@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >> Group b) Potential GM's who played RQ II but would not >> adopt RQ III are important because THEY ARE THE LARGEST >> GROUP OF COMPETENT GMs AVAILABLE to increase the pool >> of good potential RQ GMs. >How available are these? How do we contact them? >Most of these people will be out of the community where news >about new games spread automatically, that's school and university. >Most will now have families, time-consuming jobs, and no contact to >gaming society. I settled close to my former Polytechnic after my degree. I still have the extensive network of friends and fellow role players that I developed during my degree. I also have a telephone. >From the Hatfield Polytechnic I will draft some role players and as a public speaker I will offer to give a talk about the Fiction in RuneQuest to both the Gaming Society and Science Fiction society. I have receieved a copy of RQ:AiG and I am about to start play testing in about a week after I have digested the draft and organised the various groups I will be playing with. The chances are that you know someone who knows someone who will wake from his gaming slumber to play RuneQuest again. As a vetran of 16 years in the hobby with a step-son who plays Warhammer war games I can at least vouch for the inter-linking of UK gaming community. Like the ten mile long dragons resting among and below the hills of Glorantha the older gaming community will arise. Regards -- Guy Robinson --  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA11008; Fri, 4 Feb 94 02:49:03 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA11231; Fri, 4 Feb 94 03:48:44 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 4 Feb 94 3:49:00 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 4 Feb 94 3:48:28 EST From: bradfurst@aol.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: RQ3 compatibility Date: Fri, 04 Feb 94 03:53:42 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: <20260782FBF@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> from Brad Furst Special thanks and appreciation to Paul Reilly for identifying himself at the *top* of each letter. I much prefer to know whom I am reading from the beginning. Others, if you please, follow Paul's lead and i.d. yourself at the top. George W. Harris declares "I am growing steadily more dubious about the wisdom and necessity of completely changing the damage and armor values of nearly everything in the game. One of the results of this, and I fear the most significant one, is that RQ:AiG will be unusable without a great deal of work with almost every RQ scenario and "mechanical" resource that has ever been published, including the half dozen or so excellent sourcebooks of the RQ Renaissance. I'm not saying that this would kill off the renaissance, but it certainly won't do it any good." Bless you, George. I have tried to persuade Oliver this by telephone, by e-mail, and in person at RQ-Con. Please continue pushing at this one. from BradFurst@aol.com  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA11345; Fri, 4 Feb 94 03:01:54 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA11627; Fri, 4 Feb 94 04:01:09 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 4 Feb 94 4:01:17 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 4 Feb 94 4:01:00 EST From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Too Many Postings Date: Fri, 4 Feb 1994 01:00:26 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: <20295FE579B@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >Can we try to limit postings to one per person? It took me over an hour and a >half to read my postings yesterday, and may of these involved a few persons >sending something like 5 or 6 postings. >This is mine for today. At the risk of a third posting I feel this warrants a reply. One post a day per person is a good maxim but in some cases more than one mail note can be necessary. The key, in my humble opinion, is to concentrate on quality over quantity. There are short notes that indicate support for ideas and notes from people who actually have a copy of RQ:AiG that provide information and clarification. There are also matters of general clarification. These are the types of mail notes that might prehaps be appropriate to post in addition to your suggested ration of one note, per person, per day. Regards -- Guy Robinson --  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA13716; Fri, 4 Feb 94 04:26:52 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA12932; Fri, 4 Feb 94 05:26:41 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 4 Feb 94 5:26:45 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 4 Feb 94 5:26:34 EST From: Mystic Musk Ox To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: RE: evangelizing Date: Fri, 4 Feb 94 10:27 BST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <204031856AF@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> hi, regarding your message on the RQ playtest lists: >Sender: jacobus@edu.purdue.cc.sonata >Okay, the full poop on SJG's evangelicals vis GURPS and other products >(taken straight from the SJG Gopher server--didn't know they had one, did >you?): could you let me know the gopher/internet etc address of this server? I didn't want to post this to the playtest list, as it isn't relevant to RQ discussions. thanks, Mark Buckley  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA13996; Fri, 4 Feb 94 04:43:34 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA13226; Fri, 4 Feb 94 05:43:21 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 4 Feb 94 5:43:25 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 4 Feb 94 5:43:14 EST From: Mystic Musk Ox To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: RE: evangelizing Date: Fri, 4 Feb 94 10:43 BST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2044A3060B1@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> oops! Stupidity! sorry, its only 10:30 am here, and I haven't woken up yet! Mark  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA13610; Fri, 4 Feb 94 04:21:42 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA12858; Fri, 4 Feb 94 05:21:09 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 4 Feb 94 5:21:27 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 4 Feb 94 5:21:07 EST From: Groove Requiem.. To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: This'n'that Date: Fri, 4 Feb 94 11:19:38 MET Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <203EBCD128F@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> After being flooded with messages for the last couple of weeks, I thought I'd better add my comments on various topics... I havent seen the new draft so some of the following may be unfounded. The following are Opinions only. Rulebook size. I dont see a problem with a 300'ish page rulebook. As others have pointed out, most of the current successful games are at least that size. One point though, Oliver, does that page count include artwork ?? What to cut (if anything). DONT cut sorcery. If it was in RQ3 it should be here too. Plus we may never see a Wizards of the West supplement - having the sorcery rules in the core rulebook at least means I can attempt my own Western campaign. Also DONT cut the shamanism rules, a workable set of shamanism are a must IMO. Someone mentioned chopping the grappling rules, and some optional combat rules. That would not worry me. Artwork. Get the best you can afford. Check out the color plates in the EarthDawn rulebook for a great example of how to envoke the world atmosphere (thats what made me buy it - it looked cool). Good artwork will sell more copies than any amount of good rules. Ad Copy. How is this Ad copy to be presented to the Punters ?? If its for a magazine advert, its MUCH too long. It should have good artwork and short snappy text (20 lines at most!). Check out Dragon, White Wolf or RPI for examples. If its for a flyer to be distributed at shops and Cons, then its better. I agree with most of the comments on making it slightly shorter and snappier. I also agree that you should get rid of references to: other games, Renaissance, reformation etc Someone (Ken Rolston?) made the excellent point that you should include as many unique Gloranthan Words/phrases as possible. Make it sound different. njd Reading, England  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA21381; Fri, 4 Feb 94 07:56:01 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA14276; Fri, 4 Feb 94 06:59:21 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 4 Feb 94 6:59:26 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 4 Feb 94 6:59:12 EST From: The Indispensible Mike Brannigan To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: This'n'that, rulebook size Date: Fri, 4 Feb 1994 11:58:56 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: <2058E7522F1@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Mike Brannigan here, an anonymous gamer from the days of RQ2 and some RQ3. "Groove Requiem.." (njd) writes : (and other people have commented also) > Rulebook size. > I dont see a problem with a 300'ish page rulebook. As others have pointed out, > most of the current successful games are at least that size. I ain't got no problem with a big rulebook. Most people won't. Makes 'em feel they're getting value for money. Problems of understanding many complex rules are solved with all this malarky of sections and chapters. Digestible chunks and all that. I'm sure most people can handle reading the sections they need first and others later, if necessary. > What to cut (if anything). > DONT cut sorcery. If it was in RQ3 it should be here too. Plus we may never > see a Wizards of the West supplement - having the sorcery rules in the core > rulebook at least means I can attempt my own Western campaign. Also DONT cut > the shamanism rules, a workable set of shamanism are a must IMO. Yeah. Seconded. I guess this is intended anyway. > Someone mentioned chopping the grappling rules, and some optional combat rules. > That would not worry me. No ! Although complexity of combat can be a little off-putting at first, there's nothing more annoying than after a couple of sessions finding you want to do something more exciting or different than the standard attack/parry with weapon (whether this is voluntary or not). Besides, grapple rules are different enough that anyone wanting to use them doesn't want them to be a quickly thought out incomplete set of cut down rules just because "not everyone will use them and they take up a pages or two". I've got no problem with ignoring a complex section on, say, grappling, until I need it. But when I do decide to look at it I don't want it to be shoddy and half-hearted for fear of making it complex. We might aswell just use the D&D to hit against armour class thingy if we want to simplify things. (incidentally, different thread, but ... different hit locations for stabbing/missile and melee - keep 'em, like in RQ3; this was one of the things I hated about RQ2. As a heavy missile user (in a former life), I got really annoyed at hitting peoples arms and legs and not the chest and abdomen - totally unrealistic and annoying with it). > Artwork. We all like pretty pictures. I think they'll realise this one. 'nuff said.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA26277; Fri, 4 Feb 94 09:12:50 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA26338; Fri, 4 Feb 94 10:12:36 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 4 Feb 94 10:12:45 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 4 Feb 94 10:12:05 EST From: guy.hoyle@chrysalis.org To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: PAIN Date: Fri, 04 Feb 94 07:09:43 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <208C5832575@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> I think that there should be some sort of rule to represent the momentary pain of being injured, similar to STUN damage in the Hero system. In Hero, weapons like swords do two types of damage: killing damage, which represents actual physical damage, and stun, which represents the level of pain involved. If the amount of Stun received exceeds a character's CON, he's out of combat momentarily until he can recover from the pain. --Guy Hoyle aka Mulborth  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA23032; Fri, 4 Feb 94 08:32:57 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA23601; Fri, 4 Feb 94 09:32:37 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 4 Feb 94 9:32:46 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 4 Feb 94 9:32:21 EST From: "Loren J. Miller" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Number of messages Date: 04 Feb 1994 09:31:58 -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: <2081BEE4871@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Hello all, I'm sorry about the duplicate messages. Frankly, I have no idea what is causing them. It seems to be happening somewhere between the upenn mail relay and the host machines, since that's where the headers diverge from each other. Anyway, we were okay on this list until volume recently went crazy. If everyone could please try to restrict themselves to one or two messages a day that would probably help us all understand what's going on a little better. Instead of sending off single line comments, it would help if you assembled your thoughts and presented them all at once. I know it's harder to keep track of lines of discussion this way, but I think it's necessary if we are to continue without all getting overloaded. Thanks for your attention. 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 AA26429; Fri, 4 Feb 94 09:14:56 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA26507; Fri, 4 Feb 94 10:14:36 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 4 Feb 94 10:14:43 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 4 Feb 94 10:14:15 EST From: Viljo Viitanen To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: This mailing list Date: Fri, 4 Feb 1994 17:13:57 +0200 (EET) 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: <208CEBC5E14@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> A good idea (IMHO) would be to digest this mailing list. How about that ? (Is it technically possible ?) And due to the large amount of messages sent here, the digest could be sent out more often than one a day. -- Viljo. Viljo Viitanen, physics student at the /// University of Helsinki, Finland E-Mail: viljo.viitanen@helsinki.fi__ /// IRC:#amiga _3V_ Fido:2:220/550.7 depechemodestartrekcalvin&hobbes12\\\///00jarrerunequestfarsidesimpsonsnet hacktolkiencyberpunkconanelricturbo\XX/rakettimortalkombatv32binteloutside  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA01297; Fri, 4 Feb 94 10:08:37 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA00278; Fri, 4 Feb 94 11:07:32 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 4 Feb 94 11:08:32 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 4 Feb 94 11:07:26 EST From: "Loren J. Miller" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: PAIN and special successes Date: 04 Feb 1994 11:06:58 -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: <209B1A80E05@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Loren speaking. This is my post for the day. Guy Hoyle writes: > of being injured, similar to STUN damage in the Hero system. In Hero, weapons > like swords do two types of damage: killing damage, which represents actual > physical damage, and stun, which represents the level of pain involved. If the I've always had an objection to the way that special successes worked for weapons like swords and so on. From everything I've heard a competent stroke with a katana or other slashing sword (as opposed to a chopping sword like a gladius or falchion) opens up a shallow and very painful cut in the target (but not necessarily a fatal one). A sword should not have the same special effect that a club has. I think the reason why swords and clubs both have the same special effect in RQ is---the people who wrote this part of the combat rules (Perrin, Turney?) were in the SCA, and in the SCA swords aren't sharp so they behave like clubs. A slash should do normal damage plus pit the damage that gets through armor against the target's HP/2 or CON/2 and on a success make the target lose the next two actions, or something like that. I forget exactly what the current special rules are, but I'd quite like to expand them to reflect the amazing variety of weapons that are available. RQ could have more classes of weapons than just crushing, slashing, and impaling. Crushing: Weapon damage + DBx2 + knockback Chopping: Weapon damage + DB + knockback + limb severing if brought fully negative + weapon stuck if nothing severed Slashing: Weapon damage + DB + pit damage after armor against HP/2 and if defender loses then loses his next 2 actions from pain Impaling: Weapon damage x 2 + DB + weapon stuck Entangling: Weapon damage + DB + aimed location grappled by weapon Tripping: Weapon damage + DB + knockback + extra DEXx5 roll to keep feet. Roll 1d10 for location, rather than 1d20 on special. I realize that these notations may be a little cryptic, but I think y'all can figure them out. The other thing I'd like to see would be a rework of the way that special combat successes work, so that instead of declaring an all-out attempt to get some special result (such as feinting) you would perform your normal attack and if the opportunity presented itself (abstracted by special success) then you would also get the special result. This is already the way that the weapons specials work, but there are a bunch of special combat tactics that could be modified to use exactly the same mechanics. Here's an example of what could happen if we emphasized more tactics in the combat rules, instead of just following the philosophy of "attack and roll hit location." Humgar roared and swung at the soldier's spear, chopping off the point. He laughed in triumph and the soldier, visibly shaken, stepped back. Humgar went in for the attack, the soldier parried, and then as Humgar danced and spun to get behind the soldier he tripped over the shaft of the broken spear, which the soldier had treacherously jammed between the warrior's feet. Humgar sprawled on the dirt and jerked and cried out in pain as the soldier kicked him again and again. Then the lights went out. Say I'm the soldier, above, facing Humgar the barbarian. I don't have a point on my spear anymore, but my sergeant trained me in how to use the haft too, so while Humgar is dancing around me I declare "haft attack, trying to trip him." A simple success on the dice means that I get a normal shot in, with a random hit location. A special success on the dice means that I get the normal shot in, but I also get the special result I was looking for---in this case I trip Humgar. Before he can get up I'm kicking him furiously, and then I whack him on the back of the skull as hard as I can with what's left of my spear. If we made this change then it would emphasize tactical choices in combat, and increase the roleplaying of combat at the same time. I think this would be a good thing. 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 AA28631; Thu, 3 Feb 94 18:31:32 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA20433; Thu, 3 Feb 94 19:31:20 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 19:31:27 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 19:31:05 EST From: graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Sorcery, Re: Recent comments Date: Fri, 4 Feb 94 11:28:54 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: <1FA1607387E@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Graeme replying to David Cake replying to Graeme... > > > > Same for Tap: Pow 0%, Dex -10%, Int -30% etc. > > > > > Were you thinking of something more like what Burton Choinski (sp?) > Or, ahem, modesty forbids me, the sorcery draft I posted here a while ago, > and now on soda.berkeley.edu (thanks to Henk and Shannon). I saw yours, but I really was thinking of Burton's. In retrospect, I think I prefer the single skill system with modifiers: I'd like to see a reduction in the number of skills a sorcerer needs. 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 AA00742; Thu, 3 Feb 94 18:56:02 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA21670; Thu, 3 Feb 94 19:55:05 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 19:55:59 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 19:54:49 EST From: graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Ad copy Date: Fri, 4 Feb 94 11:53:10 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: <1FA7B5C0610@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David Cheng writes: > No,no,no... Larry Elmore would never consent to doing a cover where > there were no scantily-clad, perfectly-toned women. Sounds good to me! :-) Seriously, who did the covers for River of Cradles and Shadows on the Borderlands? They certainly seemed non-violent, and the woman was hardly the chainmail bikini type. They may have been a bit too prosaic for the cover of a new game, though I'm sure the artist could do a more fantastic cover. 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 AA10556; Fri, 4 Feb 94 11:37:15 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA06887; Fri, 4 Feb 94 12:35:02 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 4 Feb 94 12:35:21 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 4 Feb 94 12:34:54 EST From: "Roderick Robertson, SC1-5, x52936" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: PAIN Date: Fri, 4 Feb 1994 09:31 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: <20B26C31F79@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Guy Hoyle Says: >I think that there should be some sort of rule to represent the momentary pain >of being injured, similar to STUN damage in the Hero system. In Hero, weapons >like swords do two types of damage: killing damage, which represents actual >physical damage, and stun, which represents the level of pain involved. If the >amount of Stun received exceeds a character's CON, he's out of combat >momentarily until he can recover from the pain. No. This is not really what pain does. Long ago I tried to work out rules (for the same reason as Guy probably). Thinking to go to the source, I asked a doctor (Ok, she was my mom, but she was available). Pain during comnbat is blocked out by adrenaline, and only after combat ends does it really make itself felt. Lingering pain can debilitate you long after the combat is done (personal experience of broken hands, bruised nerves, etc), but during combat? nope. Also see those police reports about *normal* (not hopped up on drugs) people shrugging off baton hits, bullet wounds, etc. Actually, I think we had this thread during the RQ4.2 months (or was it on another list...) My $.02 (pretax) worth Roderick Robertson  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA05736; Thu, 3 Feb 94 20:23:59 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25793; Thu, 3 Feb 94 21:23:48 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 21:23:54 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 21:23:42 EST From: graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: "Aim" battle magic Date: Fri, 4 Feb 94 13:21:50 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: <1FBF6A10C78@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > Joerg DM 0.02'd: > > A reversed shimmer spell would be nasty, too, and certainly a trickster > > spell. "aim" or something, also good for hunting. And needs to overcome > > MP for living targets. Might work for one hit location only? > > I'll certainly add my tuppence to that! What a fine spell for all kinds of > users. Should it be Temporal (say +5% per point for any missile to hit for > the next 5 minutes), or Transient (+15% per point for the next shot only)? @ I'd go for the Temporal spell, myself: it'd make a very nasty attack spell, and I don't see any Temporal spells that improve missile attacks (Of course, I haven't seen RQ:AIG). > > Probably a Hunter cult spell only. Probably not for the basic rulebook. > There's an PC Odalya initiate in my "DoomQuest" Dorastor campaign, I'll see if she takes the spell and what effects it has. > ==== > Nick > ==== > 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 AA06048; Thu, 3 Feb 94 20:29:33 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25960; Thu, 3 Feb 94 21:29:23 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 21:29:29 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 21:29:10 EST From: graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: game size Date: Fri, 4 Feb 94 13:27:30 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: <1FC0DEB53F4@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Boris writes > But RQ2, despite it's many die hard adherants, did not feature a complete > game world. It wasn't until the Cults books were released that anything > other than tantalizing glimpses of Glorantha were given. We want to do > more with this, to allow players to start playing with *no* supplements. > Once they're hooked, they will buy all the Gloranthan material they can > find. But let's hook them first. Absolutely. I got the RQ2 book before I'd heard anything else about RQ, and I just found the Gloranthan stuff confusing (of course, this was back in my AD&D days, but so are the players we want to attract) There just wasn't enough meat in it for me, just apparently unconnected cults, timelines and maps. The stuff on Runes was the clearest. > ---- > Boris > 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 AA19742; Fri, 4 Feb 94 12:57:38 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA13175; Fri, 4 Feb 94 13:57:13 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 4 Feb 94 13:57:33 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 4 Feb 94 13:56:38 EST From: Robert Smith To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: PAIN and special successes Date: Fri, 4 Feb 1994 12:56:26 -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: <20C83A4281E@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Rob Smith replies to what Loren J. Miller wrote: >> The other thing I'd like to see would be a rework of the way that >> special combat successes work, so that instead of declaring an all-out >> attempt to get some special result (such as feinting) you would >> perform your normal attack and if the opportunity presented itself >> (abstracted by special success) then you would also get the special >> result. This is already the way that the weapons specials work, but >> there are a bunch of special combat tactics that could be modified to >> use exactly the same mechanics. >> >> Here's an example of what could happen if we emphasized more tactics >> in the combat rules, instead of just following the philosophy of >> "attack and roll hit location." >> >> (story deleted) >> Say I'm the soldier, above, facing Humgar the barbarian. I don't have >> a point on my spear anymore, but my sergeant trained me in how to use >> the haft too, so while Humgar is dancing around me I declare "haft >> attack, trying to trip him." A simple success on the dice means that I >> get a normal shot in, with a random hit location. A special success on >> the dice means that I get the normal shot in, but I also get the >> special result I was looking for---in this case I trip Humgar. Before >> he can get up I'm kicking him furiously, and then I whack him on the >> back of the skull as hard as I can with what's left of my spear. >> >> If we made this change then it would emphasize tactical choices in >> combat, and increase the roleplaying of combat at the same time. I >> think this would be a good thing. >> I really like this idea.I'm not sure we need all the special attacks, if some guidelines can be provided for the referee to deal with special attacks in a less formal manner. Some special result like tripping, blinding temporarily, selected location, snared weapon, etc. These would be announced before the attack and replace the standard special damage bonus (do I understand correct- ly?). A whole additional element of role play could be added to combat that is now missing, and at the cost of few additional rules. It would be a burden on the referee to determine whether such things are feasable (can I snatch the crystal off his neck with my free hand if I make a special attack?), but as a referee I would be willing to do. What are the opinions of other refs? Rob Smith  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA21236; Fri, 4 Feb 94 13:18:01 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA14830; Fri, 4 Feb 94 14:17:41 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 4 Feb 94 14:17:49 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 4 Feb 94 14:17:29 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Art; size; pain; specials Date: Fri, 04 Feb 1994 11:17:16 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: <20CDC9917CE@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Loren, Guy: I like the idea of having non-combat art, featuring a woman. The possibilities are endless: Kallyr Starbrow addressing a Lightbringer's Council, a female shaman summoning the clan's ancestors, a Lunar guard inspecting a Sartarite's paper, etc. Boris: > If you look at the game market now, those games which are successful > contain a game world that is well, if not fully, described in the basic > rule set; Shadowrun, Vampire/Werewolf/Mage, Cyberpunk. And all of these > weigh in at or around the 300 page range, or more. This does not seem > to cost them sales, and I don't think mere size will cost RQAG sales. Shadowrun is 208 pages. CyberPunk 2020 is 240. Pendragon 4th edition, which I haven't seen at any store (I had to special order), is 352. Seems to me that the shorter the game, the more successful. I find reading 352 pages too much like work. (Pendragon might be a counterargument -- that splitting the game didn't work and they had to rejoin Pendragon 3rd Edition and Knights Adventerous -- but it may also simply point out that you have to split the right stuff.) Guy: >I think that there should be some sort of rule to represent the momentary pain >of being injured, similar to STUN damage in the Hero system. I think this would introduce way too much complexity. With RQ:AiG, I can manage to make a single combat drag on all night without even using any optional rules (except a Fatigue roll). I remember GURPS had something like this, but I never had to GM it. I would hate to have to keep track of which NPCs were temporarily inconvenienced by pain. Loren: I really like RQ:AiG, where all specials do the same thing. I can remember that. And (as GM) I don't have to keep track of bleeding or impaled weapons. And nobody has to slow down, find the resistance table, and make extra rolls. As for tactics, sounds good in principle.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA23207; Thu, 3 Feb 94 21:34:37 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA29002; Thu, 3 Feb 94 22:34:23 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 22:34:28 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 22:34:12 EST From: graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Sorcery Date: Fri, 4 Feb 94 14:32:32 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: <1FD23835AF0@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Carl Fink writes: > Graeme Lindsell writes in part: > > > G> The lack of a social aspect for sorcery is a defect IMHO, when they > >are meant to be the priests in Western culture. > > Um, that's backwards. Backwards? Malkionists were invented long before sorcery - wasn't Greg's first Gloranthan work about Prince Snodal? > Sorcery isn't designed to be a priest's magic. Which, as I said, is a problem. If there is no social aspect to Western magic, then I don't see how Rokari society can continue to exist: the most powerful members of their society are not in control. > It just so happens that some sorcery-users are priests, but most > sorcerers in Glorantha are not. "Some" = "almost all of them in Western Genertela, most of them around Dragon Pass, and an unspecified number in the East"? The "most" you speak of seems to mean the Brithini, Mostali and Lunar Colleges of Magic (which I suspect should have some link to the Red Goddess, since they are influenced by the Red Moon). We know so little about Kralorelan religion that we can't say whether their sorcerers are religious or not. The Pameltelan sorcerers seem to be Malkionist in Origin 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 AA23347; Fri, 4 Feb 94 13:44:47 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA17117; Fri, 4 Feb 94 14:44:19 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 4 Feb 94 14:44:42 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 4 Feb 94 14:44:10 EST From: Kevin Maroney To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: This mailing list Date: Fri, 4 Feb 1994 14:43:56 -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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <20D4E754786@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > A good idea (IMHO) would be to digest this mailing list. > > How about that ? (Is it technically possible ?) For the love of Rashoran, no! I'm on two other mailing lists of relatively high volume (rq-digest and gg-l, the Magic: The Gathering list), and I can tell you with no hesitation that digests are user-hostile and clutter up one's mailbox ten times as effectively as individual-item lists. (At least for me.) I strongly recommend that rq-playtest go to digest form _only_ if the non-digest form remains available. Kevin J. Maroney|kjm@panix.com|Proud to be a Maroney|Proud to be a Yonker Barney delenda est.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA25563; Fri, 4 Feb 94 14:05:46 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA18917; Fri, 4 Feb 94 15:05:24 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 4 Feb 94 15:05:37 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 4 Feb 94 15:05:05 EST From: "Loren J. Miller" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: This mailing list Date: 04 Feb 1994 15:04:23 -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: <20DA7B450AD@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Sorry for yet another message today, but I've had no dupes yet today so I'm getting cocky. Anyway, it's not possible to digestify this mailing list, since there's no facility for automating it and I'm not going to digestify it by hand. -- Loren p.s. Rob said what I meant much better. Declare a special effect of your attack beforehand, and if you get a special success then replace the normal damage-enhancing special effect with the declared one. GM decides which declared effects are feasible.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA08132; Fri, 4 Feb 94 16:02:47 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA27957; Fri, 4 Feb 94 17:00:06 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 4 Feb 94 17:02:42 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 4 Feb 94 16:59:07 EST From: "Loren Miller" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: problems ?! Date: Fri, 4 Feb 1994 16:58:58 EDT 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: <20F8E64127B@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> If it ain't this it's that. For now try rq-playtest@wmkt.wharton.upenn.edu to send mail to the list. The campus people appear to have hidden us from the world. -- +++++++++++++++++++++++23 Loren Miller LOREN@wmkt.wharton.upenn.edu Into the flood again, same old trip it was back when  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA08854; Fri, 4 Feb 94 16:11:24 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA28748; Fri, 4 Feb 94 17:10:28 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 4 Feb 94 17:11:19 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 4 Feb 94 17:10:12 EST From: jjm@zycor.lgc.com (johnjmedway) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: re: This Mailing List Date: Fri, 4 Feb 94 16:07:47 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: <20FBD8F252B@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >> From: Viljo Viitanen >> Subject: This mailing list >> Date: Fri, 4 Feb 1994 17:13:57 +0200 (EET) >> >> A good idea (IMHO) would be to digest this mailing list. A *bad* idea (IMHO) would be to digest this mailing list. I know that we are occasionally awash in extra copies of messages, though I do not see such as often anymore. Digesting messages to this list, whether automatically, or by each of us glomming all of our thoughts together into single posts, will tend to bury and break up discussions. I am mainly interested in certain areas of the rules and the advertising thereof. It is also cleaner to post the kibbles and bits as they are discussed to oliver, and that way he need not wade through the buried discussions, looking for the tidbit meant for him. If this list consisted more of long, more than one subject postings, we would all have to read everything, shuffle it together, and then post. I really think we'd lose out on the discussion quality, while decreasing the mail system's workload, and increasing our own. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 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 AA08900; Fri, 4 Feb 94 16:11:56 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA28797; Fri, 4 Feb 94 17:11:28 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 4 Feb 94 17:11:34 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 4 Feb 94 17:10:51 EST From: jjm@zycor.lgc.com (johnjmedway) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: PAIN Date: Fri, 4 Feb 94 16:08:40 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: <20FC0796E22@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >> From: "Roderick Robertson, SC1-5, x52936" >> Subject: Re: PAIN >> Date: Fri, 4 Feb 1994 09:31 PST >> >> Pain during comnbat is blocked out by adrenaline, and only after >> combat ends does it really make itself felt. Lingering pain can >> debilitate you long after the combat is done (personal experience of >> broken hands, bruised nerves, etc), but during combat? nope. Also see >> those police reports about *normal* (not hopped up on drugs) people >> shrugging off baton hits, bullet wounds, etc. Quite correct. I mentioned a while back that Stafford thought that PAIN would have figured more in RQ if ha had messed up his wrists beforehand. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 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 AA10427; Fri, 4 Feb 94 16:31:29 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA29666; Fri, 4 Feb 94 17:31:07 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 4 Feb 94 17:31:12 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 4 Feb 94 17:31:02 EST From: "Loren J. Miller" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: This Mailing List Date: 04 Feb 1994 17:30:39 -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: <21016923F69@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Well, I'm still not sure what happened, but mail looks to be getting through fine. The campus mx entries are set properly, and have been all along. This morning I got a number of bounces from the host genie.geis.com, and it has been producing problems for a few days. We only have a single subscriber from that host, and he probably subscribed only a few days ago (he's near the end of the file) which is about the time that the problems started. I've seen problems like this before when flakey mailers on host systems didn't know what to do with mailing lists, so I got rid of our subscriber on genie.geis.com. I think this should clear up the duplicates problem. Make that "I HOPE it will clear up the duplicates problem." Cheers, Loren  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA13904; Fri, 4 Feb 94 17:09:37 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01427; Fri, 4 Feb 94 18:09:27 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 4 Feb 94 18:09:33 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 4 Feb 94 18:09:20 EST From: "Andrew J. Weill" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Stuff in the book. Date: Fri, 4 Feb 1994 15:01:19 -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: <210B9E744C8@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> On Wed, 2 Feb 1994, Bryan J. Maloney wrote: > > Okay, I don't want to see rules without context. > > In other words, if you're not going to go in-depth into the societies > that use "sorcery" like you do for the ones that use spirit magic and > divine magic, don't bother with a whole bunch of information on > sorcery in the core book. Let sorcery remain mysterious and unknown > until you release a book set in a region where sorcery is actually used. > > Hey, gang --- while I like the background material as much as anyone else, and I think it's vital for good PC role-playing, don't forget that as a GM, I NEED VILLAINS! My primary use of sorcery has been to make it something which my players have to fight against. For this to work, the mechanics need to be available to the GM and the players. Are we also saying not to include chaos monsters without a detailed presentation of Cults of Chaos? Also, I intend to run Carmanian NPC's in Dragon Pass -- I need sorcery rules! I really think this quest to remove rules is misplaced. Let's let the marketing mavens of AH determine the maximum length with which the authors can work, and make the contents the best we can! ---Andy Weill  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA14948; Fri, 4 Feb 94 17:19:46 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01846; Fri, 4 Feb 94 18:19:35 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 4 Feb 94 18:19:40 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 4 Feb 94 18:19:28 EST From: Raymond D Turney To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: PAIN and special successes Date: Fri, 4 Feb 1994 15:19:10 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <210E5366D62@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Ray Turney I dislike the proposal for informal guidelines and abolition of special attacks, and prefer the existing system, for the following reasons: a) The GM is already doing too much, if he's keeping track of 10 monsters, trying to prevent the guy who shouts everybody down from overrunning the game, remembering the game mechanics, trying to hold people to their statements of intent, etc. The last thing RQ is something else for the GM to rule on during combat. b) The optional combat tactics, as skills, are a useful way to differentiate the hard core professional warriors from the others. Even as it stands, one can compare a warrior who really needs only mastery of primary weapon attack, primary weapon parry, one special attack to deal with masters of Parrying, and a heavy duty weapon enhancing spell to the sorceror. A sorceror figures at a minumum to need Ceremony, Intensity, Duration, Range and four to five sorcery spells. c) Once we open the door to players choosing the special attack result they want, you will have 45% semi-pros more frequently outmaneuvering 90% masters when they get lucky. d) If players are to be allowed to choose the special result they want it should be from a precisely defined list at the time the special is rolled. I do not want a lot of unnecessary declarations that if I special I am ...  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA20920; Fri, 4 Feb 94 18:30:48 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA04569; Fri, 4 Feb 94 19:30:27 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 4 Feb 94 19:30:44 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 4 Feb 94 19:30:21 EST From: "Newton Hughes" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: dodging arrows?!?!?!?! Date: Fri, 04 Feb 94 18:27:21 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: <21213AB1135@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Newton here. A few days someone mentioned some rules in RQ4AiG that allowed dodging of arrow fire, saying that an archer could loose an arrow and dodge someone else's arrow in the same round. Is anyone else besides me skeptical about that? (Even if it were possible, I'd rather hide behind a convenient rock and/or fellow comrade and count on partial concealment while blaz- ing away with the all-out attack option.)  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA26864; Fri, 4 Feb 94 20:14:55 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA08034; Fri, 4 Feb 94 21:14:37 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 4 Feb 94 21:14:51 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 4 Feb 94 21:14:29 EST From: Raymond D Turney To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: dodging arrows?!?!?!?! Date: Fri, 4 Feb 1994 18:14:24 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <213D0141CD4@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Think you've found a bug. It suggests that you can dodge arrows at point blank at 1/5 your dodge chance, and if the shooter is adjacent at full. It also says you can parry a missile weapon at normal range at 1/2 skill, and at maximum with normal skill. There's a case to made for dodging javelins, etc. But arrows? This seems reminiscent of martial arts myth to me. In any event, there seems little justification for allowing both parries and shield coverage {discussed immediately below}. Authors, please take note - Ray Turney  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA27384; Fri, 4 Feb 94 20:34:53 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA08785; Fri, 4 Feb 94 21:34:44 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 4 Feb 94 21:34:51 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 4 Feb 94 21:34:34 EST From: Carl Fink To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Sorcery Date: Fri, 4 Feb 1994 21:34:06 -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: <21425C03E4E@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Graeme Lindsell writes in part: G> Backwards? Malkionists were invented long before sorcery - wasn't Greg's >first Gloranthan work about Prince Snodal? Backwards from how we worked on it.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA29604; Fri, 4 Feb 94 20:51:06 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA09307; Fri, 4 Feb 94 21:50:56 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 4 Feb 94 21:51:01 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 4 Feb 94 21:50:44 EST From: David Cake To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Art; size; pain; specials Date: Sat, 5 Feb 94 10:49:50 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: <2146AB71B9E@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > > Boris: > > If you look at the game market now, those games which are successful > > contain a game world that is well, if not fully, described in the basic > > rule set; Shadowrun, Vampire/Werewolf/Mage, Cyberpunk. And all of these > > weigh in at or around the 300 page range, or more. This does not seem > > to cost them sales, and I don't think mere size will cost RQAG sales. > I am in complete agreement - a nice, thick book filled with general niftyness is what I would like to see. RQ is not Elric!, where much of the world is only sketched out, and the magic and combat systems are stripped down and uncomplicated. There is, of course, a school that would like to see RQ more like that - but that is not what we are talking about here. RQ:AiG needs complete rules, it needs to absolutely minimise the need to reissue supplements, and it needs enough background for people who do not own Genertela to start playing when they get it home. Even if we decide to stripout much of sorcery - I would rather see the book contain a stripped down sorcery (enough to play beginning sorcerers) than nothing. > Shadowrun is 208 pages. CyberPunk 2020 is 240. Pendragon 4th edition, which > I haven't seen at any store (I had to special order), is 352. Seems to me > that the shorter the game, the more successful. I find reading 352 pages > too much like work. (Pendragon might be a counterargument -- that splitting > the game didn't work and they had to rejoin Pendragon 3rd Edition and > Knights Adventerous -- but it may also simply point out that you have to > split the right stuff.) > Actually Shadowrun is 295 or so pages, including index and all (I think 208 might be the first edition), and Ars Magica (an excellent game that I think appeals to a very similar market - roots in traditional fantast gaming but with much more attention to cultural and mythic factors) runs to 386. I might also note that when Call of Chtulhu was reissued to put all the separate supplements in one book, rather than a slim rulesbook and a pile of supplements, it was both a favourite with players and very good seller. Same goes for Champions. Big books are the format that sells nicely at the moment (I like 'em), and I think that quibbling over what should be removed to slim it from ~300 to <200 pages is just silly. Lets make it nicely complete rulesbook. trying to slim RQ down to the size of Elric! or RQ2 is just not going to happen without splitting it into multiple supplements several of which are necessary for most play. Maybe 1 separate supplement might be part of the RQ4 project (and if so I go for a brief precis of sorcery in RQ:AiG swiftly followed by a full length and rather complete sorcery supplement). I think talk of things like moving optional combat rules into a separate book is a big mistake. Cheers Dave  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA29729; Fri, 4 Feb 94 20:53:23 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA09383; Fri, 4 Feb 94 21:53:16 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 4 Feb 94 21:53:20 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 4 Feb 94 21:53:02 EST From: Carl Fink To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Sorcery Date: Fri, 4 Feb 1994 21:52:41 -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: <21474A639B3@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Graeme Lindsell writes in part: Sorry about the retransmission -- the message was somehow truncated before. G> Backwards? Malkionists were invented long before sorcery - wasn't Greg's >first Gloranthan work about Prince Snodal? Backwards from how we worked on it. Or more, backwards from what sorcery is supposed to do in RQ. It is not *intended* to be a priest's magic. G> "Some" = "almost all of them in Western Genertela, most of them around >Dragon Pass, and an unspecified number in the East"? The "most" you speak >of seems to mean the Brithini, Mostali and Lunar Colleges of Magic (which >I suspect should have some link to the Red Goddess, since they are >influenced by the Red Moon). We know so little about Kralorelan religion >that we can't say whether their sorcerers are religious or not. The >Pameltelan sorcerers seem to be Malkionist in Origin Actually, I was thinking of "sorcerer" as including anyone who uses sorcery, thus Malkioni Farmers and Warriors, Kralori ordinary citizens, all Vadeli, all East Islanders, some trolls... Red Moon sorcerers would, IMO, be more like Malkioni than, say, Kralori sorcerers, since they descend from (mostly) Carmanian influences.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA29852; Fri, 4 Feb 94 20:57:17 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA09471; Fri, 4 Feb 94 21:57:05 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 4 Feb 94 21:57:09 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 4 Feb 94 21:57:02 EST From: David Cake To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Sorcery, Re: Recent comments Date: Sat, 5 Feb 94 10:56:16 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: <214859C24DF@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > > Graeme replying to David Cake replying to Graeme... > > > > > > Same for Tap: Pow 0%, Dex -10%, Int -30% etc. > > > > > > > Were you thinking of something more like what Burton Choinski (sp?) > > > Or, ahem, modesty forbids me, the sorcery draft I posted here a while ago, > > and now on soda.berkeley.edu (thanks to Henk and Shannon). > > I saw yours, but I really was thinking of Burton's. In retrospect, I think > I prefer the single skill system with modifiers: I'd like to see a > reduction in the number of skills a sorcerer needs. > I empathise - but the idea of my system (and presumably Burtons) was that a sorcerer need slightly more skills initially, but is given a lot more flexibilty for it, and the gain from learning a new spell/skill is potentially a lot higher. I had a lot of minor nitpicks with Burtons ideas, but the main was that he tried to hard to force all the RQ3 spells to conform, and in the process introduced a lot of categories that seemed very artificial. The other big consideration (which I tried to adress ) is compatibility with RQ3. In any case, look for an update on my ideas when my copy of RQ:AiG arrives (damn being stuck out here in the colonies). > Graeme Lindsell a.k.a graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au > > Cheers Dave  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA01783; Fri, 4 Feb 94 21:05:44 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA09803; Fri, 4 Feb 94 22:05:37 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 4 Feb 94 22:05:40 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 4 Feb 94 22:05:22 EST From: David Cake To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: PAIN and special successes Date: Sat, 5 Feb 94 11:04:25 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: <214A93D40BA@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> I am against the imposition of a PAIN rule, except as an optional rule (for people that can be bothered). I generally agree with Lorens thinking on specials though. I like the idea of having more choice, but I think that most of the special combat options should remain as requiring special training to learn, though I think it should be easier than now. I do not particularly think that the rules should really encourage people to use options other than the default at every opportunity, though, and I would prefer to see the list of options restricted to either - a very small list - or mostly those that are only applicalbe in appropriate cicumstances. As for GM workload, I think that if the new combat aoptions are not made to look better by comparison to the standard ones (especially of the standard ones do more damage, while the other ones have mostly tactical uses) then most players will not use them that often - but they will really add tension to important fights (like duels, and such). Count me in for more combat options. Actually, one of my prime motivations in getting involved in RQ4 was to make sure that combat at high levels remained interesting (in RQ3 it could get very dull). Cheers Dave  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA26407; Sat, 5 Feb 94 01:09:10 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA16237; Sat, 5 Feb 94 02:08:56 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 5 Feb 94 2:09:02 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 5 Feb 94 2:08:50 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Archers dodging Date: Fri, 04 Feb 1994 23:08:41 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: <218B8111CB3@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >Newton here. > >A few days someone mentioned some rules in RQ4AiG that allowed dodging >of arrow fire, saying that an archer could loose an arrow and >dodge someone else's arrow in the same round. Is anyone else besides >me skeptical about that? What's the problem, dodging arrows, or dodging if you do something else in the round? I don't conceptually se a problem with either. Remember, RQ combat is stylized; real combats aren't just two people standing there trading whacks at each other.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA28896; Sat, 5 Feb 94 02:23:30 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA17543; Sat, 5 Feb 94 03:23:22 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 5 Feb 94 3:23:26 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 5 Feb 94 3:23:12 EST From: Eric Rowe To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Archers dodging Date: Sat, 05 Feb 1994 00:22:54 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <219F575656D@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David says in response to Newton's arrow dodging complaint... > >What's the problem, dodging arrows, or dodging if you do something else in >the round? I don't conceptually se a problem with either. I have a big problem with dodging arrows. Sure, maybe at longer ranges you have time to notice something coming and shield cover your vitals, but the old rules effectively covered that. Most people I know can't even dodge nerf arrows, let alone the real thing. Are Gloranthan arrows slower than regular ones? >Remember, RQ combat is stylized; real combats aren't just two people >standing there trading whacks at each other. This has little to do with one's ability to dodge high velocity missles. eric  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA03697; Sat, 5 Feb 94 05:06:52 -0600 Return-Path: <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA19706; Sat, 5 Feb 94 06:06:46 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 5 Feb 94 6:06:51 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 5 Feb 94 6:06:38 EST From: Nick Brooke <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Characteristic Training Date: 05 Feb 94 06:02:39 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: <21CAECB1318@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Nick Brooke here again: CHARACTERISTIC TRAINING: RQ:AiG has a neat set of characteristic training rules (p.72f of current draft). There are, however, two obvious omissions. (1) Wot No INT Training? I am still deeply miffed by this omission. It seems reasonable to me (as I keep on saying), and could easily be added to the rules; making *any* attempt to increase INT into a Hard task, taking two seasons minimum, would be fine by me. Why do you think mystics meditate and hermits hide away, while scholars pore over things they probably know already...? (2) The difficulty of increasing a characteristic is determined by how far you have improved from your originally rolled value to the maximum value of that characteristic for you. This is usually either species max (21 for humans) or half-again the initial roll, whichever is lower. Advancing the first third of the way is Easy, the second is Medium difficulty, the third is Hard. Base time to train is set at 30 days (NB: should be 28), and doubles for every increase in difficulty. Examples: If my rolled STR is 12, my maximum possible STR is 18. Increasing my STR is Easy from 1-14, Medium to reach 15-16, and Hard to reach 17-18. If I have rolled STR 10, max. STR 15, my thresholds are 1-12 Easy, 13-14 Medium, 15 Hard. (because 15-10 = 5; 5 / 3 gives remainder 2; 2 "extra points" add to the Easy and Medium ranges). If I have rolled STR 17, species max. STR 21, it is Easy for me to increase STR up to 19, Medium to reach 20, and Hard to reach 21. (It's probably worth noting that increasing a reduced characteristic up to its originally-rolled value should always be Easy for each point regained). That's nice. RQ:AiG does not, however, have good rules for establishing who can train up a characteristic. ("Practice" is possible, at x2 time, or "Research" at x4 time, but there's one big difference. With training, the gain in characteristic is automatic on a successful Instruct roll; other methods require a characterisic gain roll, using the POW gain roll mechanism: max value less current value times 5%). Currently, if you've trained or researched (or practiced: an odd omission from these rules) one point in any characteristic, you can start training others' scores in that characteristic up at once, willy-nilly, no limit. I'd suggest one or more of the following: You could require an adventurer to have completed a characteristic increase *as difficult* as the one his students are attempting. Building on my earlier examples, if I've only ever increased my rolled STR of 17 to 19 (Easy), I can't help a guy with rolled STR 10 increase it above 12: that's a Medium difficulty for him, and he's already derived all the benefit he can from my basic weight-training routine. He needs something more suited to his level of physical development: I had an easier time getting to STR 19 than he will getting to STR 13! If I now "push" myself, developing new breathing exercises, perverse forms of press-ups, etc. and manage the Medium increase from STR 19 to 20 myself, the extra *technique* I have learned will help me teach my student how to raise his STR to 13 and 14. This "justifies" the higher cost of higher-difficulty characteristic training: it is more difficult to learn to teach a Medium or Hard increase. It also limits the availability of mega-characteristic-trainers. Potential problem: a STR 6 wimp can complete three increases (Easy to 7, Medium to 8, Hard to 9), taking just 3 seasons, and then set himself up as the new Charles Atlas. Solution: if a STR 9 guy offered *you* STR training, where would you tell him to shove it? Mechanical solution: say that *in addition to the above*, the trainer's characteristic must be higher than his student's. This serves further to limit the availability of training. Hope this hasn't been too long and boring. ==== Nick ====  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA03691; Sat, 5 Feb 94 05:06:47 -0600 Return-Path: <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA19703; Sat, 5 Feb 94 06:06:31 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 5 Feb 94 6:06:45 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 5 Feb 94 6:06:25 EST From: Nick Brooke <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Training and Instruct skill Date: 05 Feb 94 06:03:07 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: <21CADFC2038@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Nick Brooke here, with a suggested change to the current rules. Hope I include enough background for non-draft-owners to follow the thread. Cost of Skill Training: (for those who have the draft, this modifies RQ:AiG page 72, top left) Class size limits are used to determine the maximum number of students an instructor can teach, as in RQ3. To quote: "as a rule of thumb, an instructor can teach 32 students in the 0-30% range, 16 students in the 31-45% range, 8 students in the 46-60% range, 4 students in the 61-75% range, 2 students in the 76-90% range, and one student with skill 91% or higher. I find this odd, given that RQ:AiG includes an "Instruct" skill. This is at present used to modify the upper limit of useful skill training: Instruct skill is complementary to any skill being taught, so you add 1/5th of your Instruct to your skill level to determine how far you can train someone effectively without it lapsing from "Training" to "Practice" (which takes twice as long to confer skill gains). It's also meant to be rolled every training session to see if any skill gain is imparted, but this is just "in theory" -- the authors have wisely stated that a 51%+ Instruct skill makes such a roll unnecessary. (I'd set the "automatic basic success" level at 30%, as for other routine skills, but I digress[*]). Class size should be dependent on Instruct skill as well as on the students' ability: "... an instructor can teach Instruct/2 students in the 0-29% range, Instruct/5 students in the 30-44% range, Instruct/10 students in the 45-59% range, Instruct/20 students in the 60-74% range, Instruct/40 students in the 75-89% range, and one student with skill 90% or higher. For a "generic" instructor with 51% Instruct skill, this is 25 beginners, 10 novices, 5 trained, 3 skilled, or one expert or master student." You can make this less verbose with a table: - STANDARD - SKILL DESCRIPTION MAX.STUDENTS NOs. COST 0-29% beginner Instruct/2 25 1 L 30-44% novice Instruct/5 10 2 L 45-59% trained Instruct/10 5 4 L 60-74% skilled Instruct/20 3 8 L 75-89% expert Instruct/40 1 16 L 90%+ master 1 1 32 L (unlikely!) Note that I've shifted skill categories down by 1%, here and above, as you and I and everyone knows a Master has 90% skill, not 91%. If prices are set with a "Standard" as shown (i.e. beginners expect to pay 1L a day for training), poor instructors will (rightly) earn less than Masters for the same work. This makes Instruct skill still more useful: Arlia (Instruct 15%) could only train eight beginners, three novices, or two trained users of a Scimitar, and spar educationally with any one partner with a skill up to 71% (68% scimitar plus 15/5% complementary Instruct skill) while Drill Sergeant Carnifex (Instruct 96%) could handle his whole 49-man pike block of raw recruits on his own (beginners: 96% / 2 = 48; drop one man from the block 'cos Carnifex himself won't be needing any training). Just a thought: makes Instruct skill still more useful, and slips some variation into the economics of training. ==== Nick ==== [*] Of course, if class sizes are set by this rule, then allowing automatic basic success with Instruct 30%+ still won't screw people around too much. And you can always ask to make a roll, or have the GM insist on one given a tricky or important pupil...  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA04971; Sat, 5 Feb 94 05:50:29 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA20284; Sat, 5 Feb 94 06:50:16 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 5 Feb 94 6:50:20 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 5 Feb 94 6:50:05 EST From: akuma@netcom.com (Steven E Barnes) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Characteristic Training Date: Sat, 5 Feb 1994 03:50:43 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <21D68445720@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Steve Barnes here. Nick sez: >(1) >Wot No INT Training? I am still deeply miffed by this omission. It seems >reasonable to me (as I keep on saying), and could easily be added to the >rules; making *any* attempt to increase INT into a Hard task, taking two >seasons minimum, would be fine by me. Why do you think mystics meditate and >hermits hide away, while scholars pore over things they probably know >already...? I agree; I also have a radical proposal that POW checks be eliminated, and have increases made thru training, like any other stat. POW loss would then be recovered at POW/10 or POW/20 points per season. I don't expect this to actually be accepted, of course. >That's nice. RQ:AiG does not, however, have good rules for establishing who >can train up a characteristic. ("Practice" is possible, at x2 time, or >"Research" at x4 time, but there's one big difference. With training, the >gain in characteristic is automatic on a successful Instruct roll; other >methods require a characterisic gain roll, using the POW gain roll >mechanism: max value less current value times 5%). The problem I saw was that for a normal guy like me to raise his STR thru daily gym workouts ("research"), it would require over two Earth years just to get a check; I would then have only a 50% chance of any actual gain. What I want to see is lower requirements for gaining stat increases, but time required to maintain a high level of stat training. So if I bulk up thru STR training, I have to work out every day, or I will gradually lose the benefits. I admit that I don't have any concrete proposal for this. -steve  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA05401; Sat, 5 Feb 94 06:16:33 -0600 Return-Path: <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA23898; Sat, 5 Feb 94 07:16:25 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 5 Feb 94 7:16:29 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 5 Feb 94 7:16:17 EST From: Nick Brooke <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Miscellaneous comments Date: 05 Feb 94 07:12:49 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: <21DD81F78E7@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Nick Brooke here: A few comments from the proofreading of RQ:AiG I performed last weekend. BIG HEADERS to let you know what I'm on about. [Square brackets] to explain the background for those who don't own the draft. Page references for those who have copies in the format: page number + column + top/centre/bottom of page, so (19Rc) is p.19, right hand side, near the middle of the page. MAGIC POINT REGAIN RATE: [This has been kept the same as in previous editions] (19Rc) "1/24th of their current POW per hour." Note the change, after which Nick says: why this tedious rate, encouraging sorcerous bookkeepers with calculators and digital watches. I'd suggest returning 1/4 of current POW in MP four times a day: at dawn, noon, sunset and midnight. Coincidentally, these are magically potent times by anyone's reckoning. What do you think? (this change was inspired by a similar rule in "Elric!"). KNOWLEDGE SKILL CATEGORY MODIFIER: [RQ:AiG splits RQ3's "Knowledge" skills into "Knowledge" (which cannot be increased by experience), and "Reasoning" (which can be). At present, the skill category modifier for both is identical: (INT + INT - 20)] (20Rb) SUGGESTION: why not make the Knowledge skill category modifier into INT-10. Makes it distinctive and different to Reasoning, and makes Lores even harder to learn and improve in than Crafts, which Feels Right to me. AVAILABILITY OF CULT MAGIC: [Characters' initial Magic is determined on a six-point scale. At present, a Divine Magic user with "Magic 1" is a typical Lay Member and gets 6 points of cult spirit magic] (23Rb) DIVINE MAGIC TABLE: I'd suggest reducing Points of Cult Magic across the board by three, to 3/6/9/12/15/18. Scarcity is good, as it makes players dependent on the goodwill of cult superiors for their battle magic. Also, in some cults a Lay Member will be hard pressed to find six useful points of battle magic (given the new and good maximum limits to variable spells' intensity). The Points of Spirit Magic column on the Spirit Magic table [which runs at 6/9/12/15/18/21] is just fine. TIME DEPENDANT SKILLS: [RQ:AiG includes rules where the level of success obtained on a skill roll can (in some cases) affect either the time taken or the quality of the finished product. These are left rather vague and unsatisfactory] (53Rt) TIME DEPENDENT SKILLS: I disagree with the assertion that "success is essentially guaranteed if you spend a long enough time" Bargaining, or Orating, or Persuading. I'm also unsure how you would gamemaster (say) an Orator haranguing the masses under the rule that a special success can take half as long or produce a result of twice the quality. OK, so you say the base time is an hour, and after fifteen minutes what do you tell the speaker: "You have incensed their passions somewhat after fifteen minutes..." etc? At what point in the speech does the speaker have to decide whether he's going for a quick or a solid success? The current rule is obscure on this point. Also, on the question of whether the player or the GM should decide whether the result to be obtained comes quicker or better with varying levels of success: there are situations when either would be advantageous in very different ways (inciting a mob is an obvious instance). Again, I don't think Communication skills are applicable. If a failed Bargain roll results in half the reduction in price I asked for, and my fumble chance is only going to be 1-2% in any case, why not go for it? Given the rules for role-playing hints as rewards for Orate successes, how does "a result of twice the quality" help? MORE hints? To what end? IT'S MUNCHKIN TIME: "SWORDANCING" SKILL [RQ:AiG includes, as an example of how to subsume several skills into one new one, the skill of "Swordancing", being described as "a skill that lets you jump and dance while swordfighting"] (54Rb) I think Sworddancing is spelled like I just wrote it, or as two separate words (or hyphenated), but in any case NOT as the unpleasant neologism "Swordancing". Speak it aloud, and work out why I'm saying this. There are definitely two "D" sounds in the spoken word. While I'm here, clear up the related (and ugly) "Swordancer" on p.28Cb (which is one of the Sartarite Entertainer optional skill-sets). I also think this is a *terrible* example for a proposed new skill, as included in the Sartarite character templates is an Entertainer optional sub-set of characters who could easily want to do this, and the rules also tell every newbie that (real) sword dancing is a Sartarite speciality on p.27Rc. New GMs will be snowed under by keen, eager players saying "Why can't I be a sword dancer? The rules *say* I can be a sword dancer! Go on, I want to be a sword dancer...". Remember how many people out there play Tricksters, despite all the disincentives. There are plenty of fools who will take advantage of laxity like this. My opposition is largely because this is an undefined new skill which the rule set implies should become widespread. It also opens the door to new "composite combat skill sets" which will screw up your combat rules. Do the authors mean to let adventurers Jump AND Dance AND attack for one Action in combat? Intimidate AND Attack? Spellcast AND Attack (Fighter/Magic User multi-class character concept)? Thought not. This skill should either be fully described, interfaced with the Move rules, etc., or left out. I'd prefer the latter. RIDING AND BEING THROWN: [In RQ:AiG, a rider who fails a Ride roll has an out of control steed. He or she must make another Ride roll at the end of each melee round: success brings the mount back under control; failure results in a safe fall inflicting no damage (if riding with no saddle) or no effect (with one); a fumble results in a fall that will inflict damage (with no saddle) or a safe fall (with one)] (57L) Why do adventurers thrown from out-of-control animals take no damage if they use saddles? This doesn't seem very sensible, given that they could well be tangled in the stirrups, etc. The disadvantage of bareback riding is covered by ANY failure being a dismount; damage should apply in either case to a fumbled Ride roll. NOMENCLATURE: Please, let's rename "Fast Talk" (a Persuade subskill) as "Bluff". You cannot "fast talk" someone into doing something in the Queen's English; you can "bluff" someone in either English or American, I believe. Likewise, the RQ:AiG rules often mention "legionnaires". In England and in academic circles, you'll always find that down as "legionaries". Why change just to please the French (who will be getting their own edition, surely)? This grates on me whenever I read it, and I imagine the same is true for several other readers on a majority of continents. CEREMONY: NB: I *think* the increments here are a little steep on the current RQ:AiG Spell Casting Ceremony Table (which I'll not repost now to save space). I'd prefer to see more increments at lower levels: Spell Ritual ----- ------ - 1 melee round (6 seconds) 1/10 - x3 3 melee rounds (18 seconds) 2/10 - x3.33 10 melee rounds (1 minute) 3/10 - x5 1 full turn (5 minutes) 4/10 - x6 half an hour 5/10 1/10 x8 4 hours 6/10 2/10 x6 1 day 7/10 3/10 x3 3 days 8/10 4/10 x2.5 1 week 9/10 5/10 x8 1 season Full 6/10 x5.25 1 year - 7/10 x3 3 years - 8/10 x2.33 7 years - 9/10 x7 49 years - Full The reason for this is, quite simply, that we *know* the Seven Year Build-up is a really potent magical enhancement. 49 years is close to the length of a Lunar Wane (54 years), so plausibly there are BIG magical cycles that occur over that length of time. But if the Lunars think working for seven years is impressive enough to go down in the history books, it ought to be pretty damn' impressive as a Ceremony Time. Your Ritual table takes *way* too long to get big results -- unless real imbalances were noted using the old Fibonacci (sp?) tables, something like this seems to make sense. Having only one "combat-useful" Ceremony Time (1 melee round; next stop 10 melee rounds) won't encourage people to use Ceremony in games. Having two steps (1 round or 3) might, at that. You also get a meaningful high end to the Ritual table. PICK LOCK, ETC. Some skills (Pick Lock, Track) allow a failed skill roll to be retried until fumbled, halving then quartering (and so on) the skill level for each successive try. I don't like this much, as fumbles remain very unlikely, while success chance is always at least 5%. It might be easier to allow retries at +10 to the D100 roll per time, greatly increasing the chance of a lock-jamming, trail-losing fumble (given that the adventure is by now aware he doesn't know what he's doing, this seems fair to me). I prefer this to the halve then halve again rule: it's more appealing to mathematical noodle-heads, too. That's all for now! I have a bulky post gestating on the various Language and Script skills, but want it to be perfect before I send it off. ==== Nick ====  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA05387; Sat, 5 Feb 94 06:15:56 -0600 Return-Path: <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA23886; Sat, 5 Feb 94 07:15:46 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 5 Feb 94 7:15:52 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 5 Feb 94 7:15:35 EST From: Nick Brooke <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Agility skills Date: 05 Feb 94 07:13:15 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: <21DD5320E9B@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Nick Brooke here, yet again (yawn). AGILITY SKILLS IN RQ:GLORANTHA There are several dissimilar mechanics presented in the RQ:AiG Agility Skills rules (also the Manipulation skill of Drive, and the Reasoning skill of Craft/Shiphandling). As these are to resolve similar situations, I'd suggest in the interest of ease that they be brought into line with one another. The three key areas are: (1) Routine Movement -------------------- This sometimes requires 30% skill to perform automatically under normal circumstances (Boat, Climb, Ride), sometimes not (Acrobatics, Jump, Swim, Drive, Shiphandling). With the latter, it is possible "routinely" to perform basic feats with no minimum skill requirement. This feels odd to me. When I had a Swim skill of 5%, I did not "routinely" progress through calm water at a steady rate. Ditto Drive. I don't imagine the others are significantly different, and recommend that 30% skill be the threshold for routine use of Agility and Movement skills. (2) Distance Travelled ---------------------- Distance travelled is determined in various ways: the most common is for it to be based on MV (i.e. the Move attribute, equal to SIZ+DEX/5), as for Climb, Jump and Swim. A balancing Acrobat crosses a distance of 1/5 his or her Acrobatics skill in meters per round under adverse conditions; this (of course) will allow a highly-skilled Acrobat (say 30%+) to move faster under adverse conditions than he or she could normally, though this may fit in with Carl's desired Hong Kong martial arts movie feel for RQ:AiG combat. No rules are presented for a high Boat, Ride, Drive or Shiphandling skill increasing the basic distance that can routinely be covered. This seems a peculiar omission. (3) Increasing Speed -------------------- When making a Climb roll or a Swim roll, adventurers can increase their rate of movement by up to half again, taking a 10 percent skill penalty for every 10 percent increase in speed. No such rules are presented for Acrobatics, Boat, Jump, Ride, Drive or Shiphandling. Certainly, several of these skills would plainly benefit (becoming more reasonable/plausible) were they introduced: PC: "I want to Jump across the chasm!" GM: "What? It's seven meters across, and your MV score is only six. The rules say you can jump your MV in meters horizontally from a running start." PC: "Go on, be reasonable!" GM: "No, I *am* being reasonable. RuneQuest has rules when you can increase the distance an Agility skill normally covers, and there aren't any rules like that in the Jump skill description. Looks like the giant ball-bearing trap claims another victim..." ENDWORDS: I'm not proposing to puree RQ:AiG's rules down to a single sludgy consistency. I just think it will be easier for new GMs to pick up and run with the game if all similar skills are resolved in a more-or-less similar way. Setting out these three principles (30% skill required for routine activity; distance travelled in some way modified by high skill; further increase in distance possible with defined skill penalties) in every case will make it simpler to do this. ==== Nick ====  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA07486; Sat, 5 Feb 94 07:44:03 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25074; Sat, 5 Feb 94 08:43:55 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 5 Feb 94 8:44:00 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 5 Feb 94 8:43:46 EST From: guy.hoyle@chrysalis.org To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: RE: PAIN Date: Sat, 05 Feb 94 07:29:43 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <21F4D5F7F05@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> OK, I'll accept that pain during combat might be blocked out by adrenaline, but what about after battle? Maybe we should still have to make a roll of some sort to perform a physical action while the location isstill injured. It would seem to affect DEX-related skills to me. Maybe some kind of optional system could be devised ( thus adding to an already-hefty tome, I know.) BTW, I kind of like the idea of a basic but complete core of rules, folowed up by supplements that expand upon the usefulness of the system; don't buy the supplements you don't want. Extra combat rules would seem a ntural for one supplement. I also want some fancier rules for martial-arts type attacks, too; boiling all the various styles of armed and unarmed combat into a "martial arts" skill seemed way too simplistic in RQ3 to me. --Guy Hoyle  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA16272; Sat, 5 Feb 94 12:04:36 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01324; Sat, 5 Feb 94 13:04:26 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 5 Feb 94 13:04:31 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 5 Feb 94 13:04:17 EST From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: PAIN and special successes Date: Sat, 05 Feb 1994 16:01:22 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: <223A500427B@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Dave writes: > I am against the imposition of a PAIN rule, except as an optional rule > (for people that can be bothered). As long as the rules arent refined, I'd say keep pain other than through pain spirits out. Or, with the adrenaline rationalizing, make pain something which begins after the cause has been received, and treat it the same way as a disease, to keep the number of different rule small. If something like this comes in, I'd opt for any major wound (>location hit points) even fully healed, or any partly healed wound, some pain potential is included, and that skills might be reduced. Let them suffer. (evil grin) > I generally agree with Lorens thinking on specials though. I like the > idea of having more choice, but I think that most of the special combat options > should remain as requiring special training to learn, though I think it should > be easier than now. > I do not particularly think that the rules should really encourage > people to use options other than the default at every opportunity, though, and > I would prefer to see the list of options restricted to either - a very small > list - or mostly those that are only applicable in appropriate cicumstances. For instance, a tripping effect could only occur on leg hits. As opportunities arise all of a sudden, let the player decide after rolling a crit. If in Loren's example the spear-(butt-)man wanted to trip his opponent, he would either have to rely on the high probability for a leg hit, or to land an aimd blow. > Count me in for more combat options. Me too, as long as there is a reasonable Erroll Flinn feeling, I'm in, only Hong Kong style jumps ought to be out (except for Gerak Kag trolls). -- 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 AA16274; Sat, 5 Feb 94 12:04:37 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01321; Sat, 5 Feb 94 13:04:15 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 5 Feb 94 13:04:25 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 5 Feb 94 13:04:06 EST From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Regaining Magic Points Date: Sat, 05 Feb 1994 16:27:54 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: <223A42F1B4D@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Joerg here: Nick Brooke: > MAGIC POINT REGAIN RATE: > [This has been kept the same as in previous editions] > (19Rc) "1/24th of their current POW per hour." Note the change, after which > Nick says: why this tedious rate, encouraging sorcerous bookkeepers with > calculators and digital watches. I'd suggest returning 1/4 of current POW > in MP four times a day: at dawn, noon, sunset and midnight. Coincidentally, > these are magically potent times by anyone's reckoning. What do you think? Certainly easier wrt bookeeping, but... > (this change was inspired by a similar rule in "Elric!"). Which has a rule for regaining the first MP within one hour, with unconsciousness in between. I actually hate this unconsciousness business and have so far avoided application of this rule as much as possible. For one thing, unconsciousness interpreted as catatonia for one hour in Elric, or an average of two hours under the old rules, is not playable. I always saw the state of zero MP as similar to 41 degree Celsius fever - one still has a certain awareness, might even react to some influences, or fight one's own legs to leave the place one is in, but one still is in play. Also, it is much crueler if there is some remaining awareness before possession takes place, etc. In situations where one party member is down to zero MP and the party has to flee, a catatonic character is likely to be left back, a feverish one is likely to be assisted to stagger out. The latter has more drama and is therefore my preferred interpretation. Once the immediate stress situation is left, I would prefer to play a gradual recovery of the character, not necessarily expressed in digits, but e.g. allow him to use one MP for defense only after a short time. (1 MP is nothing, but at least won't allow immediate possession by a 4 MP rabbit spirit, which would have to nibble this one MP away first.) What is the state of the art for this problem? Or is this my problm only? Other points raised by Nick: > AVAILABILITY OF CULT MAGIC: I second that pure spirit magic users ought to gain some profit from their limitation. > NOMENCLATURE: > Please, let's rename "Fast Talk" (a Persuade subskill) as "Bluff". You > cannot "fast talk" someone into doing something in the Queen's English; you > can "bluff" someone in either English or American, I believe. > CEREMONY: > NB: I *think* the increments here are a little steep on the current RQ:AiG > Spell Casting Ceremony Table (which I'll not repost now to save space). I'd > prefer to see more increments at lower levels: Table deleted, but seconded (it seems already steep to me, but I haven't seen the original yet). > Having only one "combat-useful" Ceremony Time (1 melee round; next stop 10 > melee rounds) won't encourage people to use Ceremony in games. Having two > steps (1 round or 3) might, at that. Right. > PICK LOCK, ETC. > Some skills (Pick Lock, Track) allow a failed skill roll to be retried > until fumbled, halving then quartering (and so on) the skill level for each > successive try. I don't like this much, as fumbles remain very unlikely, > while success chance is always at least 5%. It might be easier to allow > retries at +10 to the D100 roll per time, greatly increasing the chance of > a lock-jamming, trail-losing fumble (given that the adventure is by now > aware he doesn't know what he's doing, this seems fair to me). I prefer > this to the halve then halve again rule: it's more appealing to > mathematical noodle-heads, too. In this case, the increase for fumbles is welcome. Anyway, I still don't like this deviation from the normal way of rolling first, than comparing to modified chance. The hobgoblins of... -- 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 AA16306; Sat, 5 Feb 94 12:04:58 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01332; Sat, 5 Feb 94 13:04:49 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 5 Feb 94 13:04:54 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 5 Feb 94 13:04:38 EST From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Archers dodging Date: Sat, 05 Feb 1994 17:36:38 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: <223A68130A5@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Joerg (a sports archer) speaking Eric Rowe writes: > David says in response to Newton's arrow dodging complaint... >>What's the problem, dodging arrows, or dodging if you do something else in >>the round? I don't conceptually se a problem with either. > I have a big problem with dodging arrows. Sure, maybe at longer ranges > you have time to notice something coming and shield cover your vitals, but > the old rules effectively covered that. Most people I know can't even > dodge nerf arrows, let alone the real thing. Are Gloranthan arrows > slower than regular ones? Attempting to shield cover your vitals when noticing the arrow is an exercise in futility if the archer was within effective range. A flying arrow is hard to see even for people who try to follow its flight, and prepared for it. Nothing but a critical scan would warrant this. On point blank range, dodging an arrow loosened in your direction is physically impossible, you can't get the acceleration. Evading an archer in point blanc range notching an arrow on his string, drawing out the bow and loosening the arrow on the other hand is quite possible. This gives you plenty of time (one combat action) to prepare for some evasive action. Provided you have the time, and can divert full attention to the archer. The same applies to longer ranges within effective range. The farther away, the more important is the sound of the loosened arrow, especially from a bow with recurve (most composite bows). There will always be the sound of a string plucked, like softly playing a guitar. An adjacent archer's shot can't be dodged, but can perfectly well be parried by pushing the bow off into a random direction. Bad luck if you happen to stand in that direction, though. >>Remember, RQ combat is stylized; real combats aren't just two people >>standing there trading whacks at each other. > This has little to do with one's ability to dodge high velocity missles. I wouldn't count the arrow as a high velocity missile. A thirty metres shot takes about 0.25 seconds to reach its target. Imagine the target area as a tunnel about an archery target wide and following a ballistic parable. If you want to avoid getting hit, all you have to do is leave this tunnel, and you're comparatively secure. In fact, if the archer's skill is low, you stand a greater risk of being hit if you successfully dodge a missed shot because the target area is more random than for a specialist archer. In any case, if dodging a missile, the target _must_ dodge when the missile is fired, to be away when the missile reaches the point it was aimed at (intended or missed). Dodging a miss might actually endanger the target. Note that archers with combat or hunting experience are likely to predict an evasive action and will lose less chance of success for shooting at a moving target than archers fresh from the practise ground, whatever their skill may be. -- 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 AA21925; Sat, 5 Feb 94 14:22:30 -0600 Return-Path: <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA06456; Sat, 5 Feb 94 15:22:19 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 5 Feb 94 15:22:27 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 5 Feb 94 15:22:18 EST From: Nick Brooke <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Zero MP Date: 05 Feb 94 15:17:59 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: <225F1E83F36@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Nick Brooke here: Just finished proofing the basic combat rules. OJ says "figure" will go, probably replaced by "combatant": a victory for common sense! Joerg ranges ahead to cover the bits of "Elric" I didn't mention, though in retrospect I ought to have considered these. The problem is what to do with unconscious (zero MP) characters. The obvious solution is to give them one MP back after, say, (21-POW) full turns, in a one-off exception to the normal rules, and have them awaken then. Simple stuff. No need for this "fevered" rubbish, which will encourage game-abusers ("Well, although I'm at zero Magic Points and feverish, I think it's reasonable for me to make a Heroic Effort roll to attack him with my sword," etc.). In the current RQ:AiG draft offensive spells attack with MP vs. POW. I like this, as it gives a welcome defensive advantage. Curiously (109), "sleeping targets will resist, though unconscious ones will not" -- I would love to know why this is so! A character with zero MP is thus extremely vulnerable to hostile magic -- as he should be! I think this "problem" is Joerg's alone. It's easily remedied by changing the (two) pages where "unconsciousness at zero MP" is mentioned, as a house rule. The downside of changing the standard rule for the corrupt benefit of munchkins and whingers is all too obvious to me. Rounding those odd points of quartered-POW -- need I say that "spare" MPs regenerate at the most appropriate times of day (dawn, noon, sunset and midnight) for your religion, tradition or school. Yelm types at Noon, then Dawn, then Sunset. Orlanthi at Dawn, then Sunset, then Midnight. Lunars get a boost when the phase of the Moon changes. Trolls at Midnight, then Sunset, then Dawn. Et cetera. Not really necessary for the rules, but I thought I should mention the idea... Minor revision to my proposed Ceremony table: have breaks at five minutes, fifteen minutes (where Rituals start), one hour, three hours, one day, and so on as normal: this means Spell ceremonies max out after a week, Rituals after seven years. Readers without RQ:AiG -- the fraction is the proportion of your Ceremony skill you can add to your casting chance with a spell of the appropriate type after a ritual of appropriate length. Apparently lots of people complained about the need for handfuls of D6, while I complained about the silly numbers, using the old table. ==== Nick ====  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA21952; Sat, 5 Feb 94 14:24:20 -0600 Return-Path: <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA06532; Sat, 5 Feb 94 15:24:13 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 5 Feb 94 15:24:16 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 5 Feb 94 15:23:58 EST From: Nick Brooke <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Zero MP Date: 05 Feb 94 15:19:39 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: <225F9080D6D@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Nick Brooke here: (Updated/completed version of last message sent in error. My machine is at fault. Loren has *probably* solved the duplication problem. Many apologies) Just finished proofing the basic combat rules. OJ says "figure" will go, probably replaced by "combatant": a victory for common sense! Joerg ranges ahead to cover the bits of "Elric" I didn't mention, though in retrospect I ought to have considered these. The problem is what to do with unconscious (zero MP) characters. The obvious solution is to give them one MP back after, say, (21-POW) full turns, in a one-off exception to the normal rules, and have them awaken then. Simple stuff. No need for this "fevered" rubbish, which will encourage game-abusers ("Well, although I'm at zero Magic Points and feverish, I think it's reasonable for me to make a Heroic Effort roll to attack him with my sword," etc.). In the current RQ:AiG draft offensive spells attack with MP vs. POW. I like this, as it gives a welcome defensive advantage. Curiously (109), "sleeping targets will resist, though unconscious ones will not" -- I would love to know why this is so! A character with zero MP is thus extremely vulnerable to hostile magic -- as he should be! I think this "problem" is Joerg's alone. It's easily remedied by changing the (two) pages where "unconsciousness at zero MP" is mentioned, as a house rule. The downside of changing the standard rule for the corrupt benefit of munchkins and whingers is all too obvious to me. ==== Nick ====  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA22557; Sat, 5 Feb 94 14:39:42 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA06956; Sat, 5 Feb 94 15:39:35 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 5 Feb 94 15:39:40 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 5 Feb 94 15:39:27 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: size; characteristic training Date: Sat, 05 Feb 1994 12:39:17 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: <2263B151A9A@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David Cake, arguing for Bigger is Better, said: >Actually Shadowrun is 295 or so pages, including index and all (I think 208 >might be the first edition), and Ars Magica (an excellent game that I think >appeals to a very similar market - roots in traditional fantast gaming but >with much more attention to cultural and mythic factors) runs to 386. Actually, Ars Magica is 160 (in the edition I have). The point is that it's possible to do a worthy game in 200 pages. With Gods of Glorantha and Genertela already out, RQ:AiG doesn't have to say everything about Glorantha. Steven Barnes said: >I also have a radical proposal that POW checks be eliminated, >and have increases made thru training, like any other stat. Well, POW checks are already eliminated. Overcoming someone's POW doesn't matter in the slightest any more; you get POW gains when the GM remembers you're supposed to. (I don't like this rule.) I don't think I like POW training, either, on the theory that sitting around at home shouldn't allow you to be more in tune with the universe or cast more rune spells. >The problem I saw was that for a normal guy like me to raise his STR >thru daily gym workouts ("research"), it would require over two Earth >years just to get a check; I would then have only a 50% chance of any >actual gain. Gym workouts would probably count as Practice, since you have equipment. >What I want to see is lower requirements for gaining stat increases, >but time required to maintain a high level of stat training. So if >I bulk up thru STR training, I have to work out every day, or I will >gradually lose the benefits. I admit that I don't have any concrete >proposal for this. While this sounds good in theory, in practice it sounds like a lot of bookkeeping, so I'm against it.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA24940; Sat, 5 Feb 94 15:30:59 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA08874; Sat, 5 Feb 94 16:30:49 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 5 Feb 94 16:30:55 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 5 Feb 94 16:30:41 EST From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Dodging Arrows Date: Sat, 5 Feb 94 16:30:32 -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: <22715CD756F@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Some context for dodgin arrows: There is a Japanese sport know as "Arrow Cutting". The way it works is that the participants attempt to cut arrows out of the air with a naginata. HOWEVER, these arrows are shot WITH warning and at a target, not at the person holding the naginata. This is considered to be a VERY difficult thing to do, even under the best of conditions, and is more a demonstration of speed and finesse under sport conditions than any sort of combat technique. Now, it is easier to move a naginata through an arc than to move a large bit of one's own body. HOWEVER, arrows can be "dodged" in a different way. It's the same way one "dodges" a gun. You dodge the end of the gun barrel. Now, the odds of doing this are very slim, indeed.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA29248; Sat, 5 Feb 94 17:08:28 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA12365; Sat, 5 Feb 94 18:08:05 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 5 Feb 94 18:08:26 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 5 Feb 94 18:07:57 EST From: "Newton Hughes" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: fatigue and encumbrance Date: Sat, 05 Feb 94 17:06:51 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: <228B4D85888@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Newton here again. The topic for today's insane harangue is "fatigue vs encumbrance." I think some of you confuse fatigue rules and encumbrance rules. I make the following distinction: Fatigue rules keep track of exactly how tired each character is at any given point. Keeping track of fatigue is generally considered to be a waste of time. Encumbrance rules, OTOH, tell how much a character can pack around with him, or what a mount can carry. They also penalize a character who carries around too much stuff. In a game where creatures come in all sizes and it's not always intuitively obvious what a creature can carry, it seems to me that encumbrance rules can be helpful. So I was sorry to hear that the RQ4 draft left out the table from the rq3 errata that was used for figuring ENC for large creatures. I thought the RQ3 rules modified by the errata actually work out surprisingly well for purposes of figuring out what kind of load your sable can carry, etc., especially when you make breakpoints every 5 SIZ, instead of every 10. My version looks like: SIZ divide load in kg by (Try figuring out how much 1-15 1 a SIZ 26 sable can carry 16-20 1.5 using the errata, and 21-25 2 you'll see why I changed 26-30 2.5 the breakpoints.) 31-35 3 (+5) (+.5) So does RQ4 penalize dodging, jumping, swimming, casting spells while encumbered, in the same way as the 3d edition?  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA29695; Sat, 5 Feb 94 17:23:34 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA12890; Sat, 5 Feb 94 18:23:25 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 5 Feb 94 18:23:30 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 5 Feb 94 18:23:18 EST From: Henk.Langeveld@Holland.Sun.COM (Henk Langeveld - Sun Nederland) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: This mailing list Date: Sun, 6 Feb 94 00:24:08 +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: <228F6616382@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> In rq-playtest you write: >Sorry for yet another message today, but I've had no dupes >yet today so I'm getting cocky. Anyway, it's not possible >to digestify this mailing list, since there's no facility >for automating it and I'm not going to digestify it by hand. >-- Loren Maybe I could help; I've got half the job done to digest the playtest list in the same manner as the RuneQuest Daily. The remaining half is creating the proper header files and such. Maybe we should create rec.games.frp.rq{.playtest}... -- 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 AA00166; Sat, 5 Feb 94 17:39:47 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA13312; Sat, 5 Feb 94 18:39:37 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 5 Feb 94 18:39:42 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 5 Feb 94 18:39:20 EST From: "Newton Hughes" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: trollkin and spirit magic Date: Sat, 05 Feb 94 17:35:50 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: <2293AC13EA3@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Newton here again. Slow day here at work. In the midst of my most recent raving I was reminded of another thing I disliked about RQ3, and would like to see it not carried over to the next edition, though I expect it will be. At least thanks to this play-test list I get a chance to complain about it. Here's what bugged me about RQ3: the % chance of casting spirit magic, POW x 5 - ENC. The problem with it is that low-POW characters become totally helpless. It's bad enough having no reasonable chance to resist an incoming spell; reducing the chance of casting spells to 30%-40%, so it can take three tries to get a spell cast, is extremely unkind. I feel sorry for low-POW types like trollkin who have to waste several rounds and several mps just to get a puny countermagic spell up. On the other end, say a sorceror works his favorite spells and skills up to 120%. Does that mean he can wear 25 ENC of armor and weapons without reducing his chance of a simple success? My alternative: spellcasters using spirit magic, rune spells, or sorcery have a chance of the spell failing equal to their ENC. Sorcerors would have to make their skill roll separately, casters of spirit magic or rune spells would not have any other roll to make.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA00281; Sat, 5 Feb 94 17:44:20 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA13423; Sat, 5 Feb 94 18:44:11 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 5 Feb 94 18:44:15 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 5 Feb 94 18:43:58 EST From: Henk.Langeveld@Holland.Sun.COM (Henk Langeveld - Sun Nederland) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Agility skills Date: Sun, 6 Feb 94 00:44:47 +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: <2294E882FF4@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >Nick Brooke here, yet again (yawn). >(3) Increasing Speed >-------------------- >When making a Climb roll or a Swim roll, adventurers can increase their >rate of movement by up to half again, taking a 10 percent skill penalty for >every 10 percent increase in speed. >No such rules are presented for Acrobatics, Boat, Jump, Ride, Drive or >Shiphandling. Or Sorcery? Reminds me of my suggestion to deduct 5 or 10 % from skill for each point of manipulation... Nick, can we work out something generic for this? :-) Henk, who's off to view the results of that VHS rune spells... -- 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 AA05524; Sat, 5 Feb 94 20:15:08 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA17264; Sat, 5 Feb 94 21:14:58 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 5 Feb 94 21:15:05 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 5 Feb 94 21:14:51 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: fatigue and encumbrance Date: Sat, 05 Feb 1994 18:14:41 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: <22BD26C564C@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David here (this line for those with lame software that doesn't identify sender). Newton wrote: >Fatigue rules keep track of exactly how tired each character is at >any given point. Keeping track of fatigue is generally considered >to be a waste of time. > >Encumbrance rules, OTOH, tell how much a character can pack around >with him, or what a mount can carry. They also penalize a character >who carries around too much stuff. In a game where creatures come >in all sizes and it's not always intuitively obvious what a creature >can carry, it seems to me that encumbrance rules can be helpful. Well, one way to penalize people is to add Fatigue... One way RQ4 does this is by having an extra Fatigue roll for wearing a helmet, and another extra for metal armor. This takes into account that lead vambraces might tire you out, but you won't get as exhausted as you would with an enclosing helm. >So I was sorry to hear that the RQ4 draft left out the table from >the rq3 errata that was used for figuring ENC for large creatures. >I thought the RQ3 rules modified by the errata actually work out >surprisingly well for purposes of figuring out what kind of load >your sable can carry, etc., especially when you make breakpoints >every 5 SIZ, instead of every 10. My version looks like: > >SIZ divide load in kg by (Try figuring out how much >1-15 1 a SIZ 26 sable can carry >16-20 1.5 using the errata, and >21-25 2 you'll see why I changed >26-30 2.5 the breakpoints.) >31-35 3 >(+5) (+.5) I don't like the way that humans have a good chance of two separate table entries (16 is fairly common with 2d6+6, and with your table it'd be well worth having a 16 SIZ so you could wear heavier armor). >So does RQ4 penalize dodging, jumping, swimming, casting spells >while encumbered, in the same way as the 3d edition? Not exactly. Dodge, Maneuver [the RQ4 melee skill], Climb, Jump, and Stealth [combines Hide and Sneak] all are -ENC. Swim is -5*ENC. No effect on spell casting. Henk suggested >Maybe we should create rec.games.frp.rq{.playtest}... Many of us don't have newsgroup access; my only Internet connection is email. Which is why I appreciate you and Loren running mailing lists. 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 AA07451; Sat, 5 Feb 94 21:01:37 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA18557; Sat, 5 Feb 94 22:01:28 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 5 Feb 94 22:01:33 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 5 Feb 94 22:01:25 EST From: devinc@aol.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Three-Bean Binders Date: Sat, 05 Feb 94 22:06:45 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: <22C992B671B@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> To me (Devin Cutler) Nick writes rather flamingly: )) Excuse me while I laugh hysterically. This is a running joke )) here in the UK )) (which is to say, for something like half the market for )) English language )) RuneQuest). At conventions, you would be laughed off stage )) for proposing )) it. And he writes: )) Because it's there, and it's possible. It's only "obviously" )) impossible to )) you, but then your priorities are different from most of the )) contributors'. )) Maybe if we cut the rules for 1000%+ skills and Martial Arts )) duels against )) Cwim, we can find room for even more Gloranthan )) background... First off, since RQ already sells well in Enlgand, perhaps we should start considering how to sell it well here in the US. Most people agree that that seems to be the market that RQ needs to open up. Given the success of AD&D here, which does use three-ring binders, I find it hard to believe that such would be laughed off the stage in the USA. In any case, please point out some cogent reasons why three ring binders are unacceptable and perhaps I will agree with you. Regarding point two, aside from the overly sarcastic tone, I am not endorsing 1000% fights against Cwim, but I will say this: All pre vious editions of RQ break down significantly at ANYTHING over 100%. Now, I'm sorry if the low-level players out there think playing runelevels with 125% attacks and parries who have been lovingly built up over many years is not valid roleplaying, but I disagree strongly. Pragmatically, I agree RQ does not need to handle 1000% attacks and the like. Obviously, leave that to Heroquest or never deal with it, since NOONE is going to get that advanced, but 200% attacks are possible and should be accommodated! in the rules. While I'm on the subject, if the rules are not supposed to handle high level combat, then someone tell me why over 13 pages of DLOD are devoted to statistics for creatures so power ful that no one (even at my "uber-level" 200% needs) could ever hope to face one. Why give the stats? Why not do something like the Hoolar in the Gloranthan Bestiary and just give some general info and then state that the being is way too powerful to be included statistically in any campaign? Devin the "Ubermeister" devinc@aol.com  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA02304; Sun, 6 Feb 94 00:43:16 -0600 Return-Path: <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA23454; Sun, 6 Feb 94 01:42:54 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 6 Feb 94 1:43:06 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 6 Feb 94 1:42:45 EST From: Nick Brooke <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Battle Magic in RQ:Glorantha Date: 06 Feb 94 01:40:26 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: <230498F4DE9@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Nick here, for the halt and lame: Newton Hughes said, wisely: > Here's what bugged me about RQ3: the % chance of casting spirit > magic, POW x 5 - ENC. The problem with it is that low-POW characters > become totally helpless. It's bad enough having no reasonable chance > to resist an incoming spell; reducing the chance of casting spells > to 30%-40%, so it can take three tries to get a spell cast, is > extremely unkind. I feel sorry for low-POW types like trollkin who > have to waste several rounds and several mps just to get a puny > countermagic spell up. Worse than that was losing 1 magic point for a failed cast roll. Characters with high POW (and MP) cast spells easily. Characters with low POW (and MP) failed their casting rolls easily, then lost some of their few magic points for having the temerity to try... it's viscous circle time, folks! On the other hand, tell me who's been teaching trollkin Countermagic and I'll bite his ears off! I'll run through the RQ:Glorantha rules changes for this important area, so we can get some more informed feedback. (Don't get me wrong, Newton: that's not "more, informed" feedback. It's a public service for people without the draft to raise their concerns on this line). ______________________ BASICS: CASTING CHANCE RQ:AiG has a flat base casting chance for Battle Magic (cult or spirit) of POWx5. This is not modified for ENC, Magic skills modifier, etc., I suppose because with this form of magic, there are built-in advantages for high-INT and high-DEX characters: normal memorisation rules are based on INT, and base casting SR for