From: owner-rq-rules-digest To: rq-rules-digest@hops.wharton.upenn.edu Subject: RQ Rules Digest: V1 #57 Reply-To: rq-rules Errors-To: owner-rq-rules-digest Precedence: bulk Content-Return: Prohibited Return-Path: owner-rq-rules-digest RQ Rules Digest: Wednesday, 1 February 1995 Volume 01 : Number 057 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 Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox. RQR: Working on the RQ4 skill list Kirsten Jacobus RQR: Guy's rule changes Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox. RQR: RWR: How Guy is using RQ4 Loren Miller RQR: Guy's rule changes ANDOVER@delphi.com RQR: Scan and search SPerrin@aol.com RQR: Skill List SPerrin@aol.com RQR: Dump All Points... Bryan J. Maloney RQR: Sorcery skills SPerrin@aol.com RQR: Combat Skill Reduction Bryan J. Maloney RQR: Drop-kicking points Brent Michael Krupp RQR: Dump All Points... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com Date: Wed, 1 Feb 1995 03:45:29 PST Subject: RQR: Working on the RQ4 skill list Well it looks like the RQ4 show might get on the road agains and this is the group I have been directed to. In preperation I have been working on restablishing the RQ4 effort with my gaming group in the UK. To do this I have savaged the list of skills that come with the last RQ4 playtest version to come with a set that I can manage. Any spelling of mine is English, of course. I am not attempting to rewrite anything but instead acknowledge that the RQ4 playtest version had a few flaws that we discussed to death during the last bout of playtesting. I was very persuaded by the skill dilution arguments that cropped up then. I will be setting events in my own version of Sartar at the dawn of the Dragon's Dream as this will provide some usefull material for role-playing. Dodge and Manoeuvre becomes Manoeuvre, a medium skill. Subskills are not used. Most craft skills are exploded into the main skill list. Search becomes Spot Hidden for reasons of recognition. Ceremony will be used but Enchant and Summon are under review. Lore is dropped due to concern about skill dillution. Culture is dropped due to the same concerns. Lore Human is rejected in favour of Physician. I plan to keep the idea of the character templates, but to use this idea as a design method to ensure that players get to pick from a set of skills that I am comfortable enough to use as GM. I am also planing a template for the non-martial Orlanthi cultists. Regards -- Guy Robinson -- ------------------------------ From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu (Kirsten Jacobus) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 95 09:20:04 -0500 Subject: RQR: Guy's rule changes Dodge and Manoeuvre becomes Manoeuvre, a medium skill. If you're going to combine Dodge and Maneuver why make the new skill "medium" difficulty. It's been my personal experience with unarmed and armed combat training (both sport AND "street" styles) that it is quite difficult to develop masterful footwork, and dodging is also very difficult to develop. This is why most unarmed styles concentrate on teaching parrying rather than dodging. My real-world experience would have me rate this new "Man-ovary" skill as "hard" difficulty but with a high default (30% to 40%). Generally, the BASICS of good footwork can be taught in a day--it's just a matter of pointing out that the fighter has feet, and they need to be moved once in a while. Developing the skill beyond that level is rather difficult, definitely harder than improving a sword stroke. Combining Dodge and Maneuver into "man-ovary" is a good idea, though. My soft style (street forms) training doesn't even distinguish between the two. To dodge is to maneuver. Every movement can be a dodge. Most craft skills are exploded into the main skill list. Why? This is a waste of paper, so far as I'm concerned. Let the crafts remain where they are, as choices within a broad category. I'd hate to have to design a character sheet with 25 crafts written down on it, most of which would not be used by a given character. Search becomes Spot Hidden for reasons of recognition. Huh? Recognition of WHAT? I've never heard of "Spot Hidden". 99.9999999% of gamers have never heard of "spot hidden". 100% of all RuneQuest players in Ithaca, NY, have never heard of "spot hidden". Believe it or not, Guy, but RQ2 is about as well known as the sequence of the uL7 Herpesvirus gene--maybe a very few specialists might be familiar with it, but it's not widespread enough to warrant making it a standard of any sort. Lore is dropped due to concern about skill dillution. Culture is dropped due to the same concerns. Lore Human is rejected in favour of Physician. Uh, yeah. Why not just drop all "lores" and return to that awful old system in RQIII (three lores are the entire world's knowledge). The great variety of lores in RQ:AiG's draft was something that was LIKED by my players. They preferred it a great deal over the three-lore system. I notice that "skill dilution" only seems to be a problem for RQII grognards. If "skill dilution" is so awful, why not lobby for only having six weapon skills and no more: One-handed balanced, One-handed unbalanced, Two-handed balanced, Two-handed unbalanced, Thrown, and Shot? Why has this cry of "skill dilution" only been raised regarding NON-COMBAT skills? I plan to keep the idea of the character templates, but to use this idea as a design method to ensure that players get to pick from a set of skills that I am comfortable enough to use as GM. I am also planing a template for the non-martial Orlanthi cultists. I think your plan was the original intent of the templates. They are meant to restrict characters to culturally appropriate skills to start with. As for "planning a template", you have divined the method by which all the templates were designed, haven't you? ------------------------------ From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com Date: Wed, 1 Feb 1995 07:26:05 PST Subject: RQR: Re: RWR: How Guy is using RQ4 Byran, Please allow me to repeat myself. I am not attempting to rewrite anything just put a game togther that I can run so we are up to speed with various issues. In this hiatus I will be using my own blend of the RQ4 rules as reflects my own style of GMing. Manoeuver (English Spelling) can be Hard, I can live with that. Crafts to Main list. I should have stated that Intrigue, BattleCraft and Disguise, for example, would be on my main list. Craft Wood would not be nor would Craft Ship be either. Spot Hidden for recognition of my players. The difference between Scan and Search is not obvious, so Spot Hidden is just as good - for me. When you look at Human Lore and Physician on the Orlanthi healer cult skill list and look at the RQ4 descriptions (I know Byran has a copy) then you will see a degree of overlap. However what I did not mention is that I would preserve Lore Horse as there is no overlap with this skill. One solution to this rewrite either or both Human Lore and Physician but instead I choose to drop Human Lore. I am not rewriting anything. Templates. I agree that my intent is the same as the original intent of the templates. I just think that they could benefit by having some a differing mix in there as there are holes here and there. And yes I do believe that I have assessed the method behind the templates. Regards -- Guy Robinson -- ------------------------------ From: Loren Miller Date: Wed, 1 Feb 1995 10:57:49 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: RQR: Guy's rule changes Bryan asks (I paraphrase): why has this cry of skill dilution only been applied to noncombat skills? Because noncombat skills don't usually take up very much game time to resolve, so that if a character spends some of its valuable character points on noncombat skills they aren't as useful for as much game time as combat skills are. Diluting those skills only makes it worse, so that not only are the skills useful for only a short amount of game time but the situations in which they are useful become very rare. The combination causes a perception among players that noncombat skills are not useful in the game, and they stop taking them with their second characters and later. On the other paw, I'd also reduce the number of weapon and combat skills if I had my druthers. Less skills would make combat take less time, mostly because character sheet lookup time would be reduced (for GMs this makes a much bigger difference than for players). If combat time was reduced there would be more time for noncombat skills. - -- +++++++++++++++++++++++23 Loren Miller "I don't have to practice what I preach 'cause I'm not the kind of person I'm preaching to!" The Book of The Subgenius ------------------------------ From: ANDOVER@delphi.com Date: Wed, 01 Feb 1995 12:13:43 -0500 (EST) Subject: RQR: Scan and search For what it is worth, my problem with the terms scan and search is that it is not obvious which one is which, on its face. So I am in favor of renaming either or both of them so it is obvious to GM and player alike when they are trying to do something whether they should use one skill or the other. Jim Chapin ------------------------------ From: SPerrin@aol.com Date: Wed, 1 Feb 1995 12:32:38 -0500 Subject: Re: RQR: Skill List I would like people to take another look at the Duration, Intensity, Range rules for RQ sorcery (If I'm missing something, it's because I'm at work and my RQ4 rules are at home). My own feeling is that they can be subsumed into one Sorcery Skill roll, and the (level?/power?) of each aspect of the spell can be dealt with by subtracting 5% increments from the skill roll (or, just to make things really chancy, figure out how many levels of power are going into the spell [3 levels of intensity, 2 of duration, 4 of range, and 3 of Area of Effect] and roll that many d6 [12d6] to see what must be subtracted from the Sorcery Skill.). This encourages sorcerers to get well over 100% with their Skill to be really magnificent. Steve Perrin ------------------------------ From: SPerrin@aol.com Date: Wed, 1 Feb 1995 12:50:23 -0500 Subject: Re: RQR: Dump All Points... An idea I have been working on and talking over with others, including Mike McGloin. RuneQuest is the game that rids itself of experience points and puts in an Experience Roll. Why not expand this to the whole game system? The RQ4 rules drop Fatigue Points (yea!) and put in an optional Fatigue Roll. Why don't we eliminate Hit Points and Magic Points, too? Hit Points This characteristic is still figured, as Health. From the character's Health we determine the Wound Thresholds of each Hit Location. In combat, we compare the damage that gets through (yes, we still have damage points) the armor against the Threshold. Exactly what happens to the Hit Location depends on the multiple of the Threshold that is obtained by the damage. Up to and including the Threshold -- location bruised/cut, vital locations unphased, arms and legs cause reductions to appropriate skills (including combat skills) More than 1x, up to 2x Threshold --Location stunned, unusable for the next turn, reduction in appropriate skills %iles More than 2x, up to 3x Threhold -- Location useless for fight More than 3x Threshold -- Location maimed, vital locations mean death either instantly or shortly This means that Healing would have to change, probably to a simple reduction of threshold effects. Magic Points Essentially, we go from a spell point system to a klutz system. Failing to make the roll means a temporary reduction of POW. Spirit Magic -- starts off at (POW - Intensity of spell) x 10. The usual rules of 96-99 mean failure and 00 is fumble apply. A failure means the reduction of POW by 1, a Fumble means the reduction of POW by 1d6+1. Something similar can be applied to Spirit Combat. Divine Magic doesn't really have this, except the possiblity of blowing a "worship" roll and losing POW when acquiring the spells. Sorcery has the same results of a failure but based on rolling the Sorcery Skill (see previous posting for how I think this should be done). See what happens when you let the original designer into the process? Steve Perrin ------------------------------ From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 95 13:06:58 -0500 Subject: RQR: Sorcery skills While I agree with the principle of subsuming many of the RQ sorcery manipulations into one skill, I find problems with the practice. First, you would have to make a separate skill for each and every different sorcerous tradition--this might not be a bad idea, but it will be more work for designers. Remember, not every tradition is supposed to have every manipulation. Second, it could make it absolutely prohibitive to have sorcerers who have any parity whatsoever with non-sorcerous characters. Remember the curve here for learning. Do we want sorcerers to be that weak vis-a-vis priests or shamans? Your precise suggestion might or might not work, I've only just read it. It would need playtest. Maybe it could work by juggling the specific penalties applied to the "School" skill for each level of each manipulation. I think that possibly juggling the penalties might make this work. :wq ------------------------------ From: SPerrin@aol.com Date: Wed, 1 Feb 1995 13:08:55 -0500 Subject: Re: RQR: Combat Skill Reduction A long perceived problem with the RQ rules has been that they encourage players to use every weapon, "just to get a check mark," even though there is no good reason to do so. How about we have one set of basic combat skills. Successful use of any weapons (perhaps in categories like missile, thrown, and melee) allows an experience roll with all weapons, on the theory that an insight about the use of one weapon could, in fact, apply to all weapons. Hmm, that's not entirely clear because I was coming at it from two directions... What this would mean is that I survive a battle with sword and shield. I also have axe and shield, two-handed sword, and dagger skills. I make a roll against the combat skill and succeed. I apply the rolled experience increase against the skill. Then, I go to each of my applicable weapons (all of the above but NOT the bow and thrown axe) and roll experience increase points for all of them. Thus, the combat skill determines whether experience will be gained with all applicable weapons combinations. Too complex? Too hard to describe? An elegant solution? (I, of course, prefer the last response, but I can deal with any.) Steve Perrin ------------------------------ From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 95 13:21:07 -0500 Subject: RQR: Drop-kicking points The wound level idea is interesting, but I have a few questions: How do wounds accumulate on a given location and across an entire body? I can incapacitate somebody without chopping that person to hamburger. Furthermore, I can beat somebody into immobility without any single blow actually "crunching" that location. How do you intend to preserve cumulativeness? The wound level idea is fashionable right now, and using a threshold level is a nice steal from elegant games like CORPS, but how do you preserve a cumulative effect? As for your magic ideas--I like the "botch" principle--something like I've implemented for using Alchemy in my campaign. I'm a little iffy on your proposed mechanics, but like the basic principle. I suggest that the success chance for Spirit magic still be made POW*5 (with your minus of intensity). Failure of the roll prohibits the character from using that spell for a relatively short amount of time. The character has accidentally given some minor offense to the gods, he's ticked off the spirit who he got the spell from, he pulled a mystical muscle, however you want to justify it. A fumble prohibits the character from using the spell for a much longer time. Sorcery would have the same effects, although the "muscle pull" explanation would probably be the one used by the henotheists and atheists. Now, how much is a "relatively short amount of time"? I don't know. One Hour? Two Hours? One Day? How much would be a "much longer time" One Hour? Four Hours? Till Sunrise or Sunset? One Week? What sounds reasonable. Of course, for Divine/Rune Magic, I'd say that the auto-fail means some minor offense has been done, and the spell is unusable until some minor penance or restitution is done. Such an offense would be more of the nature of a Roman Catholic having half a burger on Friday under pre-Vatican II rules than of true desecration or apostacy. Now stop coming up with these darn ideas, will you? Next think you know, you'll be suggesting that Heal spells should all be made rituals. ------------------------------ From: Brent Michael Krupp Date: Wed, 1 Feb 1995 10:39:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: RQR: Dump All Points... On Wed, 1 Feb 1995 SPerrin@aol.com wrote: > An idea I have been working on and talking over with others, including Mike > McGloin. I pray that Mike has no control over the final version of the new edition, but I suppose you wouldn't have mentioned him if that wasn't the case, eh? > See what happens when you let the original designer into the process? He tries to destroy the game he once had a hand in creating. Why do you want to make such incredibly major changes to the rules? If you have an itch to design a new game, then design one, but don't call it RQ. Changes like you propose would make completely obsolete all of the old RQ stuff, including all of the superb "RQ Renaissance" stuff from the last few years. And don't try to use some excuse about how you'll include conversion notes or something -- that doesn't cut it. The RQ4 draft rules (all of them) were pretty darn good and needed *polishing* and *editing* not major surgery and bottom-up reviews. Sorry to sound so hostile, but after how badly Avalon Hill handled the 3rd edition of the game, and the almost total obscurity it languished in for many years, I fear that they'll just plain kill it off if they let you do a hack job on it now, at this late date. Brent Krupp (fletcher@u.washington.edu) "In the faculty of writing nonsense, stupidity is no match for genius." -- Walter Bagehot, 1826-1877 ------------------------------ End of RQ Rules Digest: V1 #57 ****************************** 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.