From: owner-rq-rules-digest To: rq-rules-digest@hops.wharton.upenn.edu Subject: RQ Rules Digest: V1 #77 Reply-To: rq-rules Errors-To: owner-rq-rules-digest Precedence: bulk Content-Return: Prohibited Return-Path: owner-rq-rules-digest RQ Rules Digest: Friday, 10 February 1995 Volume 01 : Number 077 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 MyrddinE@aol.com RQR: RQ Rules Digest: V1 #72 BRIAN.B.D.PINCH@msm.bhp.com. RQR: Random Spirit Magic & Castings Nils Weinander RQR: RQ Rules Digest: V1 #74 Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox. RQR: Runes are now not part of RuneQuest BRIAN ADRIAN JACKSON RQR: Weapon Damage Bryan J. Maloney RQR: The name of the game Bryan J. Maloney RQR: Okay, YOU change Greg Stafford's mind Bryan J. Maloney RQR: ADMIN: Double messages Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox. RQR: There could be Generic Runes in RQ SPerrin@aol.com RQR: Playtest of HP-less ... SPerrin@aol.com RQR: Encumbrance and spel... boris RQR: Pointless Magic ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: MyrddinE@aol.com Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 00:42:29 -0500 Subject: RQR: Re: RQ Rules Digest: V1 #72 Loren says... >>for those of you with WWW access (e.g. Mosaic or Netscape or Lynx) you can reach the back-issues of the mailing lists served on hops (rq-rules, glorantha, world-design) through this temporary URL. http://hops.wharton.upenn.edu/~loren/rolegame.html<< [stepping down out of the rafters] Which raises an interesitng question. Are their any other Web sites that people know of related to the "Gaming world"? Thanx Steve Leary ------------------------------ From: BRIAN.B.D.PINCH@msm.bhp.com.au Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 18:10:24 +1100 Subject: RQR: Random Spirit Magic & Castings Tim Leask paraphasing (hopefully reasonably) : the intensity of the spell level will vary at the time of casting. I really, really don't like it. I prefer the current method where you can choose the intensity up to the current level of the spell you have learned. With the other method, you could very easily get some funny results. The method mooted avoids consistency, I thinks hurts playability and hence MGF. Two examples plucked from the air: 1) A Humakt Runelord casting 1 bladesharp while an new initiate casts 8 bladesharp. 2) a magic point deficient Chalana Arroy healer with only 3 magic points left after using 18 magic points on healing and wanting only to cast a healing 2 to stop bleeding. The healer, accidentally casts healing 3 to be knocked unconcious, without having a chance to do all the needed first aid... Spirit Magic: Skill vs Power Compromise Casting Well. there is another option. the Brian alternative :) Instead of basing skill chance solely on skill or power, it could be based on both. Peoples are not totally magical, though while involved with it (they have power). This gives a base chance of casting the skill. Say 15% - 25% based on race. This skill could be raised up to their spirit magic potentital. Again say, for people, to 40% for ordinary people. 45% for initiates, 50% for priests and 60% per shamans. This would give a base chance for long experienced characters to cast magic even if their power was reduced. They know and are experienced with the form of control over spirit magic. Their ability to control, however, also depends on their power. The higher the power, the easier comes the control. For experienced characters who lose power, there control (and hence chance of casting spirit magic) would diminish. The degree of control to add to the base chance I'd give at 3 * POW. ie for a beginning (unecumbered) character of 10 power, there would be a chance of 15 + 3 * 10 = 45%. While for a very experienced character with say 10 power 45 + 3* 10 = 75. Not too bad. I would also say that it would be allowable to increase your spirit magic potential by hero questing. Graeme A Lindsell I really liked your proposal that was stated of slowly casting spells, to almost always ensure success. On a more mundane footing, a carpenter who tried to cast glue 2 would most likely wait 2 rounds to be 'guaranteed' of a casting rather than risk it by rushing. Brian.B.D.Pinch@msm.bhp.com.au Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 09:29:06 +1100 (EST) Subject: RQR: Battle Magic Skill If we are looking at the possibility of a focussing skill how about looking at battle magic spells themselves and see if they can be improved. I never liked the total game construct of variable battle magic spells like bladesharp. Characters should simply know the spell bladesharp. IMHO the variable effect should be at the time of casting. What do others think of the following of the cuff idea. Battle Magic works thusly: Spells don't have levels - there is no bladesharp 1,2,3,4 there is simply bladesharp. If doing a rapid cast you must roll your focussing skill and expend 1 magic point. If the skill roll succeeds roll 1D4 to see the level of effect. A result of 4 is equivalent to a bladesharp 4,a result of 1 is the same as bladesharp 1. A special success means roll 2D4 a critical does a bladesharp 8. Each magic point expended during casting increases the success chance by 10%. It takes 1 strike rank per magic point expended to cast a spell. For slow spell casting for each round spent preparing to cast a spell the base casting chance(100%) is increased by 20%. Humakti could perhaps roll 1D4+1 for bladesharp and 1D4-1 for heal. Feel free to offer any improvements,additions,criticisms (constructive only) Tim "God Learner" Leask ------------------------------ From: niwe@ppvku.ericsson.se (Nils Weinander) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 95 09:13:07 +0100 Subject: RQR: Re: RQ Rules Digest: V1 #74 Nils Weinander de-lurking Nigel Smith: >We seem to have: > > on the one hand - complaints of overly complex systems eg. SR and >sorcery skills. > on the other hand - requests for more complex systems eg. riding rules. > >I, for one, do not wish to play Basic, Intermediate, Advanced, Expert, >Immortal, (etc., ad nauseum) RQ4 but we do seem to be heading towards a >'pick your rules-level' game system. I always thought that a great strength of RQ is that it is so easy to add your own house rules. I think it would be great if the RQ4 rules presents a 'basic' rules set and advanced rules as _examples_ of how you may add complexity if you wish more detail in a certain area. /Nils W ------------------------------ From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 01:09:26 PST Subject: Re: RQR: Runes are now not part of RuneQuest This subject is probably just a piece of RQ3 Literallist alarmism but I thought as might as well explore this subject. Loren writes: >Bryan writes: >>Sorry to disillusion the grognards, but the terms of the current >>agreement pretty much say to me that ANY "runic" system will not >>appear in the RuneQuest main rules book. >There's ample precedent for inventing new schemes of runes in the >introduction of the RQ3 books, and naturally in the NAME of the >system. So why not include a "Runic" sorcery system that basically >gives each school its own (probably unique) "rune"? In Glorantha each >school would have a (probably unique) combination of Runes instead, >but that's just a special case. >There's no reason that the scheme for differentiating "runes" in the >generic RQ rules has to match the Gloranthan one(s), especially if >Chaosium are going to be ninnies about it. Call the runes Cleft and >Wild and Rush and Standing and Four-Directions instead, or any >arbitrary set of meaningful or meaningless names. You don't even have >to use 4 or 5 or 6 elements. I am in complete accord with Loren. For although the Literal interpretation of 'there could be Runes in Generic RuneQuest' is 'there will be Gloranthan Runes in Generic RuneQuest' I think that this does not need to be the case. The Runes, as intermediate stage of mythological defintion, have a value outside of Glorantha even if the GM has to define a set himself for his Generic RuneQuest background. The symbolism and metaphor of potent symbols are also part of our own, real world, mythologies. Consider the cross and the fish in Christianity. Consider the power of Odin, often expressed by the craving of Runes. Consider the fetishes and imagery hoarded by the Native American 'Medicine men'. For with the Runes similiarites and differences between comparable god within differing pantheons can be examined and explained. How do Adonis and Baldur vary? Baldur has Beauty and Fertility while Adonis has, prehaps, Beauty and Strength. Another thought about Glorantha. Before I joined the RQ4 playtest list quite sometime ago I was enthralled by the ambiguity of Glorantha. Then I found out that this ambiguity had been ground out of this background by waves upon waves of revisionary Literalism that has left people paralysed with inaction rather than inspire them to make up their own world with each breath as they game. To get people to use RQ once it has been bought you have to encourage people enough for them to play it. Too many people I know bought RQ3 and never played it. Last time we talked about this on the RQ4-list we read accounts of how people had been rescued from this paralyzed state and were encouraged to break the bonds of Literalism and improvise, extrapolating their own versions of Glorantha. Regards -- Guy Robinson -- ------------------------------ From: BRIAN ADRIAN JACKSON Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 09:42:37 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: RQR: Weapon Damage < Interesting damage rules deleted > > So thats what this system does. If the total is negative the result is a > fumble. I use 15 for a lesser special, 20 for a better special and 25 for a > critical. (each plus 5 adds the following:- roll an extra dice take the best, > ingnore parry, ignore armour, and use an extra damage dice take the best). > > All the above is copyright Lewis Jardine 1994, but I don't mind people using > it as long as they don't publish it and give me feedback. > NB. the above game system is NOT RQ but it is basically compatible. > > Lewis I currently use a similar system for skills, except I keep the %D. Thus > 100% = success, >= 150% = special, etc. I also use the number rolled to determine hit location in combat. I might get round to posting some of my house rules, including my heavily modified magic rules. Anyone interested ? Brian Jackson My language is my own, and any resemblance to other languages is a mere coincidence. ------------------------------ From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 95 11:36:54 -0500 Subject: RQR: The name of the game Like it or not, the name "RuneQuest" is an artifact of Gloranthan association. If you insist that "Runes" be in the game, even AFTER Glorantha becomes a separate product, then I insist that there be no less than ten-thousand Runes. That way, you'll be able to develop settings and systems for RQ without having to completely rewrite the magic system from the bottom up. The problem with picking any small, limited set of "Rune" concepts is that you'll have to rewrite it from the bottom up whenever you actually have a setting designed for RuneQuest, and you can't use the Gloranthan set, since that's pretty darn distinctive. ------------------------------ From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 95 11:39:46 -0500 Subject: RQR: Okay, YOU change Greg Stafford's mind! I think we all agree that Glorantha is very important to the future of RQ, but this looks like another plan to repeat the "Fantasy Europe" fiasco of RQ3... Uh, you think that YOU can change Greg Stafford's mind? One of the major reasons that RQ and Glorantha are being separated has to do with GS not liking the idea of them being tightly linked anymore. GS owns Glorantha, he gets to say how it is presented, NOT Avalon Hill. Separating RQ and Glorantha was a compromise that would still permit RQ to have ANY connection to Glorantha at all. It was NOT done under Avalon Hill initiative, so far as I know. Avalon Hill is making NO design decisions. Then again, Avalon Hill made no design decisions regarding the "Fantasy Europe fiasco of RQ3"--that can all be laid on Chaosium's doorstep. ------------------------------ From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 95 11:49:28 -0500 Subject: RQR: ADMIN: Double messages I'm starting to get doubled messages on this list. It may or may not be serious. Just letting you know. ------------------------------ From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 09:58:40 PST Subject: RQR: There could be Generic Runes in RQ Byran writes: >The problem with picking any small, limited set of "Rune" concepts is that >you'll have to rewrite it from the bottom up whenever you actually have a >setting designed for RuneQuest, and you can't use the Gloranthan set, since >that's pretty darn distinctive. Why should the writers and editors of Generic RuneQuest have to pick just one discrete set of Rune concepts? Can they not instead issue guidelines on how to pick a set of Runes appropriate for a given campaign or setting and how they can affect the magic, gods, religions and pantheons with that setting? Stripping out the Runes will take some work so why can't the hooks be put in to support a flexible, improvisable Generic Rune system? Anyway these are only comments. As a playtester I can only suggest and debate. Regards -- Guy Robinson -- ------------------------------ From: SPerrin@aol.com Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 13:58:38 -0500 Subject: Re: RQR: Playtest of HP-less ... Guy, Many thanks for your efforts. If you could, see what happens with heavier armed and armored foes. Some version of your repeated-ticks-for- repeatedly-wounded-areas will probably be necessary. I believe I specified that repeated wounds would be cumulative, without any clear directive as to what this would mean. Good impro visation. At first read, I'm not sure what your results were with the magic test. You are probably right about tossing Battle Magic all day. Thanks again. Steve Perrin ------------------------------ From: SPerrin@aol.com Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 13:59:01 -0500 Subject: Re: RQR: Encumbrance and spel... Grahame Lindsell writes: >> What about this as an alternative for casting spirit magic: you can either cast spirit magic slowly, taking one full melee round per point of spell, which is automatic except for 96-00 rolls; or you can try to cast it quickly, taking 1 SR per point of spell, but needing a roll against Cast Battle/Spirit Magic to succeed. This would give young PC's an ability to cast spells, albeit slowly, and also explain why not everyone over (say) 35 has Cast Spirit Magic 100%: most people who don't go into combat or need quick spell castings like CA heal spells never need to cast spells quickly, and thus never develop the skill. > [from Jerog B.] A skill like Focussing which can be helped with the use of the often neglected spell focus could do the trick. Foci of varying bonus would give nifty small change "treasure", too...< Focussing might be a better name than Cast Spirit/Battle Magic, come to think of it.<< Some interesting points here. The variable spell casting time is a good idea, especially if we use a character's basic Magic skill roll as the start for "instant" magic. It has a nice feel of "realism of logic" versus "it's just a game mechanic." Thus, suprised targets might have time to put up a Bladesharp 1 or Protection 1 when attacked, but have to be ready for a fight to have anything better ready. It might be necessary to extend the time limits on Spirit Magic, though. Steve Perrin ------------------------------ From: mabeyke@batman.b11.ingr.com (boris) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 95 13:47:38 CST Subject: RQR: Pointless Magic Something I thought of while reading over the list, incorporating a number of things other people have discussed, including (nearly) automatic spellcasting and MPless spirit magic. The base chance to cast Spirit Magic should be 95%. However, if the roll is over the caster's POWx5, and still successful, then a "Magic Level" is lost; a level is also lost if the roll is 00. The casters POW is modified down by one for each point in the spell over one (including boosting). So a Sword of Humakt with POW 18 casting a Bladesharp 5 would succeed unless 96-00 was rolled, and would lose a magic level if she rolled anything over (18 - 4) x 5 = 70%. With this method someone who has a POW of 10 could cast 10 one point spells on average (assuming five magic levels), while a hero with a POW of 35 could cast huge spells all day, and lose magic levels only on 00 (unless the spells were 15 points or more). But, if POW is logaritmic as is STR, then someone with 35 POW would have roughly ten times the magical ability of a normal human (assuming it doubles every eight points as in RQ3; if the more reasonably progression of RQAG is used, then POW 35 is merely 6-7 times as magically able). Magic levels would function somewhat like Fatigue levels do in RQ4/RQAG. They could be something like this: Level Effects Rested No effects Tired Add 5 to all spellcasting attempts and will rolls Spent Add 10 to all spellcasting and will rolls, and lose a fatigue level. Drained Halve all spellcasting chances, add 20 to all magic rolls, and lose another fatigue level. Exhausted Character may not cast magic, is conscious only on a POWx1 roll, and loses another fatigue level. Bound POW spirits could function the same way; compare the roll to the spirit's POW and it loses the levels. Dead crystals and MP matrices would be different; they could perhaps "hold levels" that can be spent, and have to be recharged. Thus the equivalent to a 10MP crystal might be a five level crystal. I haven't thought about how to do Sorcery yet, or boosting Divine spells (though the latter would probably be just like boosted Spirit magic; lose a level if the roll is over (POW - Boost points) x5). - -- Boris Mikey, aka |"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to Maurice Beyke | strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then mabeyke@batman.b11.ingr.com| believe; if you wish to be a devotee of Intergraph doesn't want | truth, then inquire." my opinions. Nietzsche ------------------------------ End of RQ Rules Digest: V1 #77 ****************************** 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.