From: owner-rq-rules-digest To: rq-rules-digest@hops.wharton.upenn.edu Subject: RQ Rules Digest: V1 #7 Reply-To: rq-rules Errors-To: owner-rq-rules-digest Precedence: bulk Content-Return: Prohibited Return-Path: owner-rq-rules-digest RQ Rules Digest: Thursday, 10 November 1994 Volume 01 : Number 007 RULES OF THE ROAD 1. Do not include large sections of a message in your reply. Especially not to say "Yeah, I agree." Those who do will be lynched. 2. Use an appropriate Subject line. RQR: will be prepended to it. 3. Do not engage in a point-by-point analysis or rebuttal of another person's message. It is too confusing for others to follow, qualifies as nit-picking, and it usually leads to flame wars. 4. There is no number 4. TABLE OF CONTENTS RQR: Re: shamans; Brandon RQR: nothing RQR: Alternative systems for POW gain Re: RQR: RQ:AiG Shaman rules RQR: Questionaire Re: RQR: Alternative systems for POW gain RQR: Re: Brandon's rules, Part 1 of 2 and 2 0f 2 RQR: Re: Brandon's Rules RQR: Where's the Digest? and Re: BrandonQuest ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Dunham Date: Wed, 09 Nov 1994 11:53:34 PST Subject: RQR: Re: shamans; Brandon > In reply to David Dunham, I have not found PC shaman a problem in >the past (using RQ3). I make it difficult for them to capture powerful >spell spirits (ie only very low power variable spells - I don't mind the >players having a variety of spells, I only mind large unbalancing spells), >and I don't find that they significantly drag attention away from other >players. The problem was running all the random spirit encounters. It might have been a little easier to tune the power of the spells in RQ3 as opposed to AiG (I can't speak of earlier drafts since I don't remember them). I use the random spell table from Daka Fal, so it's much harder for shamans to find useful spells randomly. What I'd most like to see is perhaps not so much rules as Gloranthan guidelines: how does geographical place connect to the spirit plane? In RQ3, the spirit plane was navigable at will. There's nothing that makes you go to the Smoking Ruins if you want troll ghosts, frex. Brandon had lots of reasonable rules. >{I think that hitting yourself is rather hard to do, and >criticalling yourself just doesn't happen, not even once >in 10,000 times. I chose to take these out, but one could put >"hit self" anmd "hit ally" back, if one wished. } In my fencing days, I did hit myself once (in the foot as I recall), so I know it's possible. I'd probably put thse back -- you yourself say fumbles should be bad -- but since my greatsword-wielding character recently cut himself in half (abdomen location) with a fumble, I agree that critical self is both rare and silly and can go. >Spirit Combat is performed like regular combat, except that one's attack is >equal to (current magic points) x 5%, and one's defense is equal to POW x 5. >A character being attacked who does not actively defend uses only half his POW >for defense, round up. Spirit attacks take place on DEX SR. Have you tried this? It seems like spirit combat would be interminable, as both sides' attack slowly gets whittled down but their defense remains the same. ------------------------------ From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 94 15:59:35 -0500 Subject: RQR: nothing I'm just seeing if I can remember the list address. ------------------------------ From: Graeme A Lindsell Date: Thu, 10 Nov 1994 13:01:34 +1100 (EST) Subject: RQR: Alternative systems for POW gain Well, my first posting on this list... I'd like to start a thread on the topic of POW gain. I'm not very happy with the current method of getting a POW tick, which IMO rewards power gaming too much: the player gets a valuable reward for throwing attack spells even when there is no great need. In my most recent campaign (which was based on Pendragon-Pass style mechanics, but used the RQ skill list), I told the players that the requirement to get the skill tick was successful use of magic within a stressful situation - more like a skill tick than the current rules. I also required that those with a high POW would need to use magic more often in a given scenario to get a tick : you needed a total of POW/5 successful castings of spells in stressful situations). While this system was adequate, I wasn't entirely happy with it, as it made it seem rather arbitrary to the players. Has anyone else tried to replace the current POW gain rules? Graeme Lindsell ------------------------------ From: davidc@cs.uwa.edu.au (David Cake) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 1994 11:34:52 +0800 Subject: Re: RQR: RQ:AiG Shaman rules >They thought the RQIII rules were to D&D-ish, for one. A fascinating turnaround from the list reaction to RQAIG. Just goes to show. > They felt that the >RQIII rules made shamans into a sort of "character class" with cookie-cutter >standardized abilities. All three players liked the idea that shamans of >different cultures and traditions would have different abilities. They liked >it immensely. I like the idea that different cultures get different abilities, but I have always thought that the very different sets of divine magic (and almost all shamans appear to use divine magic), and the different spirits that they use, accounted for most of the difference. I am not opposed to the idea of different shamanic traditions having different abilities, though, but ... >We all found the implementation of the RQ:AiG ideas clumsy, though. > ... but I agree with this most emphatically! It would have been so much easier to do RQAIG shamanism so much better, was the main reaction from the list. I think this was compunded by the fact that had they floated even a brief summary with the playtest list, they would have got that response emphatically, and suggestions for big how to easily improve it, before going through the whole process of setting out and distribution. And if they can't float ideas with us, what were we for? > >After all, is a Tungus S^aman identical in powers to a Voudoun Houngan? >Is a Voudoun Houngan identical to a Charismatic Minister? All three are >"shamans" of a sort, but none of them have identical abilities, concepts, nor >cultural milieus. > Leaving aside the Charismatic Minister (whose shamanic nature I would probably deny), there is one very big division between the European shamanic tradition and the African - in the European you leave your body and travel to the spirits, in the African the spirits come and possess your body. This is a gross generalisation, of course, but that does not mean that it is not valid. RQ shamans take on the first approach almost entirely (incarnate ancestor being the only example of the latter that springs to mind). I would like to see (and in private discussion with Joerg he also expressed this opinion) some methods of becoming a competent spirit magician without necessarily having a fetch and spirit travelling. >Why are shamans to be denied any sort of basic diversity to approach? > They already have quite a lot of diversity, though I agree that you might not realise it from reading the rules. RQAIG style specialisations need a lot of careful thought, though. I think part of the clumsiness of RQAIG shamanism was reacting to the idea that shamans with a degree of specialisation were OK, but shamans that were overspecialised could be really unbalancing. You have to bite the bullet and accept that a more flexible version of RQAIG shamanism I would also like to mention that I agree with Lorens comment that one of the problems with RQ shamans is that much of what shamans are supposed to do sounds like HeroQuesting, rather than the dull spirit travel of RQ. Cheers Dave ------------------------------ From: Ancalagon@spiff.demon.co.uk (Pete Nash) Date: Mon, 07 Nov 94 08:58:36 GMT Subject: RQR: Questionaire Hi everbody, here's my answers to the questionaire. > 1. Why RQ:AIG failed to make it past playtest I have never seen a copy of RQAIG. Many moons ago I asked people to send me a copy, but they all said that they couldn't due to wide spread accessability damaging future sales. Therefore I cannot comment on the situation. I am not really interested why it failed the playtest, although it would be very nice if the playtester's could now release RQAIG... now that it dosn't look like it will ever be published. > 2. Developing a complete Staff/Vessel system for Sorcery From what I read in the RQ-Playtest list, I liked this idea a lot. It is far superior to straight RQ3 sorcery IMHO. I would love to playtest it in a campaign, but unfortunately I am cannot find any serious RuneQuester's to play with, near where I live or work (Wimbledon/London Bridge, London, UK - if anyone is feeling charitable!) > 3. Format of RQ4 (omnibook etc, I missed Joe's first post on this) Give me a format and I will comment... > 4. House rules I would love to see other peoples ideas. If I see any good ones which are better than my own twiddlings, I will incorperate them into my patchwork system. For example, I have my own strike rank rules which ignore the concept of 'rounds' completely... > 5. This mailing list, or the rq-playtest list I would prefer to stick with this list, especially since I can get it in digest format. I assume that this one will be discussing pure RQ rules, and not discussing Glorantha. Don't get me wrong I love Glorantha, but we have a separate list for that already. I would like to see the RQ rules remain omni-setting. I once ran a campaign in mythic greece and I had a friend who ran a very popular campaign in the Frank Herbert Dune setting. I like the RQ rules as RULES and I like Glorantha as a WORLD. I don't want to see the two totally dependant upon each other. \ /\ <=====#==O Hakim Abhat - Blade of the Al-Shahid (Pete Nash) ---------- / \ / \ / "While the sun still hangs in the sky and the desert X X / has sand, the 'Winds of Fate' will scour the flesh / \ / \ O==#=====> from your bones." ---------- \ Traditional death threat of the Tahrik-Min-Qad \/ ------------------------------ From: akuma@netcom.com (Steven E Barnes) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 1994 00:32:11 -0800 Subject: Re: RQR: Alternative systems for POW gain > I'd like to start a thread on the topic of POW gain. I'm not very >happy with the current method of getting a POW tick, which IMO >rewards power gaming too much: the player gets a valuable reward for >throwing attack spells even when there is no great need. [...] > While this system was adequate, I wasn't entirely happy with it, as >it made it seem rather arbitrary to the players. Has anyone else tried >to replace the current POW gain rules? > > Graeme Lindsell Yes. I mentioned this system before on the old list; I'll repeat it: POW is treated like any other stat; it is trainable. POW loss is usually not permanent, but is recovered at a very slow rate, compared to MP recovery. In my campaign, I am using a recovery rate of POW/10 points per season. Thus a character who had trained her POW up to 20 would recover 1 POW every 4 weeks. Of course, this upsets the balance of game effects which are based on POW sacrifice, i.e. divine spells and enchantments. I handle divine spells by placing a limit on the amount a character can have based on cult status (determined arbitrarily by me; it is typically 10 for a priest). Before you can sacrifice for a divine spell, you must learn and undertake the mini-heroquest to aquire it. I consider current (and AiG) enchantment rules to be broken, so I just wing it when it comes to enchantments. I am attempting to link this idea of a divine spell limit to Paul's Presence concepts, forming a G.U.T. of magic... (As an additional note, I consider the current system of POW sacrificing to be broken; it works OK if you assume that characters gain POW at a reasonable rate; however, when dealing with non-humans such as dryads and hags, they can gain POW at a ludicrous rate. An then there are chaotics with the +4d6 POW feature...) - -steve ------------------------------ From: Truls.Parsson@eua.ericsson.se (Truls Parsson) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 94 14:07:35 +0100 Subject: RQR: Re: Brandon's rules, Part 1 of 2 and 2 0f 2 Lets begin from the begining. >RULES OF BRANDONQUEST Part 1 of 2 >This is a summary of the RQ rules that my group uses currently. >Comments aare welcome. ^^^^ are and the second sentence... :-) just kidding (-: >SPIRIT COMBAT. >Spirit Combat is performed like regular combat, except that one's attack is >equal to (current magic points) x 5%, and one's defense is equal to POW x 5. >A character being attacked who does not actively defend uses only half his POW >for defense, round up. Spirit attacks take place on DEX SR. Using POW as defence seems problematic. As a persons attack declines during combat the chance of damaging someone disappears. This means that two combatants with high power of equal strength will reach a deadlock were neither is strong enough to hurt the other. Also it seems strange that the defence should remain constant while the attack strength is varying. This means that that the mental defence is like a suit of armour which doesn't weaken. It would seem more logical if it was some kind of defence that was broken down by the attacks and thus become gradually weaker. >ATTACK SPELLS >A spell that is targeted at another being must overcome the target's resistance >to have effect. After the spell is cast successfully, match current >MPs versus POW in a resistance roll This lessens the effect of attack spells as the target always has his full defence. I miss the possibility to weaken someones defences before attacking him. The reason for use of power is ofcourse to be consistent as power equates to magical defence. But then again I didn't like that either. >DIVINE MAGIC >1 point of Divine magic is recovered by an initiate during High Holy Day >ceremonies. An acolyte recovers one point per season; a priest or rune lord >recovers one point per week. A spell may not be recovered if it is still >running (e.g. if Extended). >{Arghh! He doesn't use the "pray to recover spells" mechanism! I >prefer the above, as it makes divine magic, even at rune level, >just a little more precious.} One can have both! What do I mean by this? Well simply that the above doesn't state when one recovers the divine magic but rather when one has a possibility to recover it. So how do you recover it? By praying of course :-). If one wants to make it a little harder especialy for initiates to regain magic one can use the following. An initiate can regain one point (or spell) by taking part in the high holy day worship ritual in a local temple. An initiate of Orlanth reenacts the arrival of Orlanth the Thunderous on the high holy day and thus can replenish his cloud call spell. This makes it harder to regain spells than above but still easier than in RQ III. This would also make the high holy day so much more momentous. An acolyte can regain one point (or spell) by worshipping at a temple or shrine. This works only once per season. The acolyte making a small private reenactment of a myth pertaining to that spell. However spells that are "one-use" can only be regained on the high holy day like an initiate normally regains his spells. A priest can simply regain one point (or spell) by praying for it. Doing the reenactment in his inner mind. However spells that are "one-use" can only be regained in a temple or shrine like an acolyte normally regains his spells. Notes: The reason for it being easier for priests to regain spells than initiates or acolytes is that the god trusts him more and that he is wiser in the ways of his god and thus doesn't need all the pamphernelia the other needs. Points for "one use" spells are regained just as often as normal spells it is just that you can get at them as easily. If you don't agree you can treat them as ordinary spells. I have written "one point (or spell)" the reason for this is that as some spells have more points than one it becomes very hard to regain them. For initiates I recommened that they are allowed to regain one spell instead of one point per high holy day. While for an acolyte or priest this is not necessary. Consider the seasons/weeks as time spent preparing for the reenactment. Note stacked spells are counted as multiple spell you thus regain one stacked point at a time. Thats all for now. The Troll (a.k.a Truls Pärsson) *I'm a vegetarian! I only eat elves.* ------------------------------ From: brandon@caldonia.nlm.nih.gov (Brandon Brylawski) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 94 09:51:58 EST Subject: RQR: Re: Brandon's Rules Paul Pofandt writes : >G'day >I realy like the post you placed in the RQ-Rules digest. I've always felt that >what most >fantasy games lacked were good bleeding/dying rules. >So many times I've heard: >GM: "You see an old man, obviously just holding onto life..." >Player: "We cast a healing spell on him..." >GM: "@!#$%$#@#!!" >The only thing missing now is for unhealed wounds to have a chance of >festering and the >occasional feaver or chill to attack the players. >I've been using the option whereby Heal spells are non-stackable. ie. Heal2 + >additional >Heal2 still heals a max of 2 points (per wound). This leaves a lot of minor >cuts and wounds on >the party after a major fur-ball which must be healed naturally. Makes thoes >high level heals >(and divine especialy) even more valuable. >Since you've obviously thought the rules over a lot, what's your ruling on the >following: >Thrusting weapons can impale. >Impaled weapons can get stuck. >Charaters moving with impaled weapons impaling them can take damage directly to >the impaled location. >Could not the character holding the business end of the weapon, NOT try to pull >the weapon out >and instead automatically do damage directly to the impaled location? >Any coments? >Paul. Paul, I didn't include my fever and wound deterioration rules because they aren't written up, but I do have unhealed wounds have a chance to fester. Heal spells are indeed, not stackable : only one heal per wound. Thrusting weapons do impale on a special hit, as I detailed in the combat section, and they do +2 damage when they do. If they do >= area HP x1, then the holder must make a STR versus damage done roll to avoid the weapon being jerked from his hands. If the weapon is pulled out (or voluntarily let go), it stays in the wound. A character with a weapon stuck into him takes damage from the weapon unless it is stabilized somehow. That means that is the wound is to a leg, it causes damage unless you're not using the leg to move; an arrow in the arm is stable, but a larger weapon isn't; in other areas, the protruding weapon has to be held on to, and you have to move slowly. removing a stuck weapon from someone else is a STR roll versus damage done, as before; to remove a stuck weapon from yourself, halve your own strength when making the roll (due to pain). Brandon ------------------------------ From: jonas.schiott@vinga.hum.gu.se (Jonas Schiott) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 1994 16:09:18 +0100 Subject: RQR: Where's the Digest? and Re: BrandonQuest I never got any V1 #4 of the Digest. All the others have come through fine, though. Anyone else have problems? ______ Brandon Brylawski: >A DEX 14, Maneuver 40% person >then moves 18m per action, 36m per round, or 72m sprinting This is kind of a lot under combat conditions, isn't it? Of course, it all depends on your paradigm for movement. I tend to think of combat movement as dodging between other combatants in a cramped room. Perhaps you think of it as running across an open field to engage (or get away from) an enemy? >The following take two actions : [...] > - Casting a spell requiring over 4 mps No limit? This isn't a criticism, I'm just curious. >Attack skill in excess of 90% >reduces the opponent's parry, and parry skill over 90% reduces attack. I like this, it's an old-fashioned sort of rule. :-) But it would be interesting to hear the reasoning behind choosing 90% instead of 100%. >Note that the >autofail percentage is 10%, not 5% Ah, perhaps that's it. Still, the major effect is limiting specials to 18% instead of 20%. >SHIELD COVERAGE[...] I assume this applies in melee as well? Otherwise you've reduced the utility of shields too much. Even _with_ this rule, I have a hard time seeing any reason for using 1H Weapon + Shield instead of a 2H Weapon. >a priest or rune lord >recovers one point per week [...] >it makes divine magic, even at rune level, >just a little more precious. Hmm, well if you like the change of tone this gives your campaign, fine. Personally, I can't see myself going with such a change. >Easy Skills get two increase rolls per "check". >Hard skills get one increase roll per two "checks" . Certainly smoother than AiG. >CHARACTERISTICS [...] More RQ2isms, eh? :-) I have to disagree (mildly) on this one - I feel that extending the idea of "x1.5 or species max" to all stats gives weak PCs a break, one I don't begrudge them. >CONTACTS[...] Excellent. I might just steal this bit outright. >Target may roll INT x1 >to realize he is demoralized. And how does this knowledge help him? :-) I assume you mean he recovers from the effect... Overall, very interesting. Hopefully, it will generate some discussion. ( Jonas Schiott ) ( Institutionen for Ide- och lardomshistoria ) ( Goteborgs Universitet ) ------------------------------ End of RQ Rules Digest: V1 #7 ***************************** This is the bottom of the RuneQuest Rules Digest. RuneQuest is a trademark of Avalon Hill, and Glorantha is a trademark of Chaosium. With the exception of previously copyrighted material, unless specified otherwise all text in this digest is copyright by the author or authors, with rights granted to copy for personal use, to excerpt in reviews and replies, and to archive unchanged for electronic retrieval. Send electronic mail to Majordomo@hops.wharton.upenn.edu with "help" in the body of the message for subscription information on this and other mailing lists.