From: owner-rq-rules-digest To: rq-rules-digest@hops.wharton.upenn.edu Subject: RQ Rules Digest: V1 #59 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, 2 February 1995 Volume 01 : Number 059 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 Chris Faber RQR: RQ4, but only if your cool! Staffan Tjernstrom RQR: Rule modifications Donald Walli RQR: Multiple weapon use Mike Cule RQR: RQ4 Rewrite (RSN) Kirsten Jacobus RQR: ADDITIONAL HIT POINTS!!!!!???? Kevin Rose RQR: Sorcery rules Keith Ivey RQR: Dump roll for divine magic? Loren Miller RQR: ADDITIONAL HIT POINTS!!!!!???? David Cake RQR: RQ4 Rewrite (RSN) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Faber Date: Wed, 1 Feb 1995 16:49:30 -0500 (EST) Subject: RQR: Re: RQ4, but only if your cool! Greeting to all, I'd like to make a simple point. Don't waste my time discussing rules for a system that only a limited amount of people have access to. Leave this group to the discussion of the rules everyone has access to. After RQ4 is published, we can all run right out and pay big $$$ to have something to talk about, like RQ is cool, but the rules suck. Chris Faber ------------------------------ From: Staffan Tjernstrom <100303.141@compuserve.com> Date: 01 Feb 95 17:42:56 EST Subject: RQR: Rule modifications Steve Perrin: >>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. David Dunham: >RQ4 had various approaches to this (not all of them good), mostly based on >limiting the number of checks you could roll for. I tend to prefer the >Pendragon approach that you only receive the check when the GM tells you >it's OK. In my opinion (humble as it is) the system as is (ie RQ 2.75b-ish) works quite well, since the balancing factor is the requirement that the character needs _ONE_WEEK_ to learn from experience. As a character typically spends quite a lot of time doing other things (adventuring, performing temple duty, etc) it should be relatively difficult to find these weeks. After all, when was the last time that your character managed to fit in that extra week's study to improve his/hers grasp of the cult language of choice? Bryan J Maloney: >>I suggest that the success chance for Spirit magic still be made POW*5 >>(with your minus of intensity). David Dunham: >POW*5 is really too low as it stands. The average character fails to cast a >spell almost half the time, which isn't much fun -- especially since he >then loses MP. I agree (almost - see below) bearing in mind that most battle/spirit magic spells that are actually cast are cast against another 'spirit' and thus already have to overcome their opponents power/MP in order to succeed. However, the reduction of the 95% cast chance does allow some interesting effects to be considered. I personally have no problem with a POW 12 character being more or less guaranteed to cast healing 1. The fourth time he/she does it, it requires a roll of below 90. BTW, what about if instead of spell casting having sucesses/failures along the lines of 'mundane' combat it rather matched the new idea of Spirit Combat in RQ4 (for those of you without the rules, it basically gives you a percentage chance and unless you _really_ blcw it you will always do some damage, and if you roll _real_ good you can blow away godlings in one blow). For instance (I'm making this up as I'm typing, apologies for inconsistencies), the caster has to use his Spirit Combat roll for casting spells (ie convincing the spell spirit to do it's task). A success would indicate that the spell has worked (and that you do _not_ need to overcome the opponents power(?! [guess whose character cannot harmonize a trollkin])). A normal failure would allow a roll again against the 'cast chance'. If this fails, then no effect, otherwise a 'low-power' version of the spell occurs (eg a x 2 Farsee). If at any time a fumble is rolled then apply fumble system of choice (for mine see RQ-rules #43). Likewise if a critical is rolled on the _first_ roll only. In conclusion, thanks for an interesting discussion so far (even if it arrived as I was downloading), let's keep it going. Staffan Tj. "Oh, I couldn't afford a whole new brain" - 2nd Zambesi, Monty Python's Flying Circus #39 ------------------------------ From: Donald Walli Date: Wed, 1 Feb 1995 18:15:00 -0500 (EST) Subject: RQR: Re: Multiple weapon use > Brent Michael Krupp wrote, in response to Steve Perrin: > >> 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. > >This is a problem with players and referees, not rules. If a GM lets his >players get away with abuses like this, it is not the fault of RQ. Simply >insert a line or two in the gamemaster section encouraging GMs to >exercise control over their games. Hmmm... I disagree. It comes directly from a rules construct: the 5 masteries necessary to become a Rune lord. Esp. from those cults that require more than one weapon mastery. In RL tournament and melee combat (well, in the SCA anyway) you stick with one weapon--typically your favoured/primary-- until you lose, or until it's taken from you or dropped. *Then* you go to a backup. Unless, of course, you figure "I need some more intense practice with this <>--I'll carry it instead of my beloved Left Handed Can Opener." Requiring PCs to master (attain a 90%+ skill with) two weapons will indeed lead people to use two weapons whenever they can in a combat. Why is this an abuse on the part of players, to be dutifully squelched by good GMs everywhere? >> 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... Well, perhaps. I do think that practice with one weapon in a competition setting teaches you things about those situations in general; I would argue that this would happen in life-or-death combat as well. Kinda hard to quantify cleanly enough for game mechanics, but with some very careful thinking and wording, perhaps it could indeed be the "elegant solution" that Steve mentioned. With players who like to argue rules, however, I think it would quickly reduce MGF. When I want realism, personally, I go strap on the "real" armour, pick up the semi-"real" weapons, and go out to thrash (and be thrashed by) some very real friends and acquaintances. - -- Don Walli dwalli@mtu.edu ------------------------------ From: mikec@room3b.demon.co.uk (Mike Cule) Date: Wed, 01 Feb 1995 23:25:46 GMT Subject: RQR: Re: RQ4 Rewrite (RSN) I saw (unofficially, yes, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa) a copy of the RQ4 draft notes. Could I add my 1p? Things I liked: The new Fatigue rules (which work!) The additional Hit Points (effectively borrowing the GURPS standard) The Manouver skill. Most of the new skills especially the expansion of Lore. Things I disliked: The Easy Medium Hard classification of skills. RuneQuest is currently about as complex as I want to get. This takes it over the edge. The character generation system which took too long. (Sorry, yes, I found it worse than RQ3. I know I may be in the minority for this.) The inclusion of too many skills as basics. The character sheet for an average adventurer does not need a space for ventriloquism...I would favour a character sheet with about as many skills as under RQ3 but with space at the bottom of *each* category for the additional skills that particular cults and cultures need. (A space for Bargain and Sense Chaos.) Things I want: A Research Skill (especially for Lhankhor Mhy). A total rewrite of the Sorcery system. Myself I'd favour something more like ARS MAGICA where the sorcerer must first study the general area of magic (on Glorantha correponding to the Runes) before learning the particular effects that are governed by them. To cast Dominate Human you'd first have to understand Mastery and Man for instance. Hope that's some help. - -- Mike Cule ------------------------------ From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu (Kirsten Jacobus) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 95 19:20:15 -0500 Subject: RQR: ADDITIONAL HIT POINTS!!!!!???? Warning: The following is a flame, based upon a line of a message in the RQ-Rules mailing list that stated that "the latest draft" of RQ4 has some kind of "additional hit points" a-la GURPS. I presume this to mean something like the "additional hit points" super power or the "additional hit points" racial ability to be found in GURPS Supers or GURPS Fantasy Folk, respectively. If I was in error, I retract the following. Additional hit points? Additional Hit Points!? ADDITIONAL HIT POINTS!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? What kind of CRAP is that supposed to be!? If I wanted to play D&D I'd play D&D. One of the great things about RQ is that you don't have characters having more "hit points" than their bodies actually can take as damage. Their hit point total IS a reflection of their ability to withstand physical damage. WHY HAVE ADDITIONAL HIT POINTS? That sounds like a bunch of garbage to me. Let's put it this way, GURPS has "additional hit points" but that's to reflect either four-color comic books or to compensate for the fact that GURPS has no way to adjust for the additional damage a larger creature can take by simple virtue of its size. RUNEQUEST ALREADY ADJUSTS FOR THIS WITH THEIR METHOD OF CALCULATING HIT POINTS! We do NOT need comic book-isms in RuneQuest. ------------------------------ From: Kevin Rose Date: Wed, 1 Feb 1995 18:20:13 -0600 (CST) Subject: RQR: Re: Sorcery rules What did everyone think of the ones that Sandy Peterson put out? I had to get it from him, as I seemed to have missed it in the digest, but it seemed to fix many of the problems that now exist. It had a problem (maybe, depending on your view of how good non-malikioni were suposed to be) in that sorcery worked best for Malkioni, due to the way that skills were aquired. Kevin ------------------------------ From: Keith Ivey Date: Wed, 1 Feb 1995 19:25:46 -0500 (EST) Subject: RQR: Dump roll for divine magic? On Wed, 1 Feb 1995, Bryan J. Maloney wrote: > 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. Why not eliminate the roll for divine magic entirely? Is that too un-RQ? Minor offenses should be handled by the GM, not random die rolling. It's just one more roll to delay combat. And I don't like the idea that 1 out of every 20 worship services conducted by the High Priest/Archbishop/Pope of [insert god here] doesn't work. - --Keith Ivey Washington, DC ------------------------------ From: Loren Miller Date: Wed, 1 Feb 1995 20:55:06 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: RQR: ADDITIONAL HIT POINTS!!!!!???? Bryan, You're flying off the handle without a foot to stand on, to mix a metaphor. As I believe you know the RQ:AIG rules gave characters until their negative HP before they died. This gets rid of a problem where RQ characters go from normality to dropping dead within three hit points. There's nothing at all like more hit points for levels or super-powers granting more hit points (aside from the always useful Strength Enchantment). - -- +++++++++++++++++++++++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: davidc@cs.uwa.edu.au (David Cake) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 1995 10:08:45 +0800 Subject: Re: RQR: Re: RQ4 Rewrite (RSN) Around and around and around and around it goes. Just so you, as a newcomer, can understand the wide range of opinions that exist, here are my opinions. None of this will be news to any one who has been on this list for a long time, so you might as well stop reading now. >Things I liked: > The new Fatigue rules (which work!) Which I, and a few others, really disliked, because while the basics were good, the adding directly to the roll bit is a drastic change to the RQ mechanics, and does screwyt things to high powered combat (ie if both are over 100%, even the lightest (+3) fatigue penalty is probably more significant than skill differences of up to 60%). > Most of the new skills especially the expansion of Lore. > Lots of people have argued that there is a significant problem of 'skill inflation', with more and more skills, probably at lower and lower levels, and so we should strive to reduce the number of skills. Lore skills were seen as the worst ofenders, particularly magic Lore skills. Personally, I think many of the new skills are good in that they open up new types of character to easy PC play. But there are definately a few skills, especially in the LOres, that we could do without. >Things I disliked: > The Easy Medium Hard classification of skills. RuneQuest is currently > about as complex as I want to get. This takes it over the edge. Most of use seemed to like this, I certainly did. It gets rid of quite a few problems with skills - especially as you create more skills, you inevitably make some more. I also liked the subskill system. It also doesn't add much complexity - the idea of Easy and Hard skills is easy to grasp, and it only takes effect in character creation, training, and experience rolls. > The character generation system which took too long. (Sorry, yes, I > found it worse than RQ3. I know I may be in the minority for this.) I suspect that you certainly are - about the only thing everybody agreed on was that we all liked the new character creation a lot. The RQAIG system might have soothed some of your concerns - it is the same basic mechanics as RQ4, but much streamlined. >Things I want: > > A Research Skill (especially for Lhankhor Mhy). > A total rewrite of the Sorcery system. Myself I'd favour something more > like ARS MAGICA where the sorcerer must first study the general >area of > magic (on Glorantha correponding to the Runes) before learning the > particular effects that are governed by them. To cast Dominate Human > you'd first have to understand Mastery and Man for instance. > We have certainly talked about rewriting the sorcery system at extreme length. Some people certainly favour a sorcery system less based around specific spells, though I don't think anyone has suggested an Ars Magica like system with separate generalised magic skills and spells. General magic skills, like 'FIre Magic', that allows you to cast several spells, is one idea. A two part system like Ars Magica was one idea also (there is a sorcery system based around this idea that I wrote somewhere on the archive site). Rune based sorcery has been mooted several times by several people. There are two reasons for this. One is that Greg has indicated that he doesn't particularly like the idea. The other is that no one has really done it in a way that we seems particularly satisfying. It usually ends up that some Runes are incredibly useful and/or overused, and most of them end up pretty useless by comparison. Cheers Dave Cake >-- >Mike Cule ------------------------------ End of RQ Rules Digest: V1 #59 ****************************** 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.