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 manipula