From: owner-rq-rules-digest To: rq-rules-digest@hops.wharton.upenn.edu Subject: RQ Rules Digest: V1 #79 Reply-To: rq-rules Errors-To: owner-rq-rules-digest Precedence: bulk Content-Return: Prohibited Return-Path: owner-rq-rules-digest RQ Rules Digest: Saturday, 11 February 1995 Volume 01 : Number 079 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 Hugh Foster RQR: Checks, point-less RQ, compatibility Hugh Foster RQR: Rules tinkering Nigel Smith RQR: RQ Rules Digest: V1 #74 GAWINTER@aol.com RQR: RQ Rules Digest: V1 #78 SPerrin@aol.com RQR: Sorcery playtest SPerrin@aol.com RQR: Runes & Sorcery Paul Reilly RQR: RQ Rules Digest: V1 #72 Ross Stites RQR: Attacks and Parries Paul Reilly RQR: Support for exponential stats David Dunham via RadioMail RQR: Defense Roll Paul Reilly RQR: RQ Rules Digest: V1 #70 Bryan J. Maloney RQR: Rescaling MP vs. a truly exponential Steven E Barnes RQR: Rescaling MP vs. a truly exponential Mike Cule RQR: grognards ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Hugh Foster <100326.446@compuserve.com> Date: 11 Feb 95 05:02:09 EST Subject: RQR: Checks, point-less RQ, compatibility >>He managed to check six weapon skill checks in a single combat once, and managed to somewhat justify them, as everyone else looked on amazed. Bow, thrown weapon, spear - stuck in with an impale, 2h weapon, dropped due to injured arm, 1h weapon, lost, etc. << This has some relevance to the "SR wars" discussion; if his opponent was a) good and b) equipped with a low-SR weapon (good-sized troll with a maul oughta do it) one of those weapon changes would have left him flat-footed; opponent goes first, no weapon to parry with, no shield of course. Strudel. He deserves it, of course. Side question: if he gets a tick for 2H weapon and then loses an arm, does he roll at half chance ...? >>(Guy Robinson's playtest example)<< It sounds good, but it doesn't sound like RuneQuest to me. Surely this sort of common-sense approach can be applied to the RQ rules ? It's more attitude than mechanics. Sure, it's more abstract, but didn't the players grouse that a wimpy 3' trollkin can take exactly the same amount of punishment as a hulking 6'+ Humakt Rune Lord (ie 3 ticks) ?? Mine sure would! I am speaking from a nervous position here; as a Traveller player, who watched GDW alter their rules so much as to make all previous supplements obselete. Please, don't do that to RQ ! How would you all feel, having to buy completely new core rules (where all the weapon skills your character learned suddenly become useless because previously obscure weapons suddenly become standard) and also having to re-buy all the packs (Troll-pak, Dorastor, ROC, Sub County, etc, etc) because a) the originals are abruptly OOP and b) they're useless with the new rules set ? GDW have shot themselves in the foot; please don't do that to RQ! ------------------------------ From: Hugh Foster <100326.446@compuserve.com> Date: 11 Feb 95 05:02:15 EST Subject: RQR: Rules tinkering I have a general comment. Anyone watching me (oo-er!) will see that sometimes I like new rules mods and sometimes I don't. However! While people love a game system enough to constantly tinker with the rules, it's alive. I've played many systems; when people stop experimenting, it's time to start selling the rules at games cons... Some of these suggestions are good and some are not; but one, and all, KEEP THEM COMING! They prove we have a pulse..! >>of RQ, but this looks like another plan to repeat the "Fantasy Europe" fiasco of RQ3... << I object violently (well, quite a bit) to this statement. I've been running RQ Vikings for four years and never used Glorantha. I don't object to Glorantha and I read the bits & bobs. But don't crap on my patch! Personally, I think the Alternate Earth shold have been pushed more. I mean, look at dear old TSR with their little source books for Celts, Romans, Vikings, Crusaders et al. Splendid stuff, with minimal rules. Converts pretty well into RQ and everybody's happy. Oops, no; AH aren't happy; they've lost three sales to the Dark Lord. Well that's your fault, not mine. ------------------------------ From: ns10005@hermes.cam.ac.uk (Nigel Smith) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 1995 14:10:19 +0000 Subject: Re: RQR: Re: RQ Rules Digest: V1 #74 Nils Weinander answered my 'pick your rules-level' comment with: >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. ...like RQ2 with it's optional falling, prior experience and disease rules. I agree that it could be done like this in the rule book(s), but what would happen with scenarios? For RQ4 (or is it The Quest For Something Other Than Runes 1) to be successful it needs the backup of supplements and scenarios - - at which rule level would you write these? I am all for house rules, but feel that we need a framework to hang these from. I don't mind adjusting published material to fit my game, I sure we all do it, but we are the faithful few who are prepared to put a lot of work into a game. For RQ to become a volume seller, as AH wishes, it will have to be sold 'ready to play' like the AD&D scenarios. But the last thing I want to see is 5 versions of the RQ rulebook with supplements spread thinly between them. Have optional rules but include all of them in all supplements - it is easier cut rules out than it is to add them. Nigel ------------------------------ From: GAWINTER@aol.com Date: Sat, 11 Feb 1995 14:53:38 -0500 Subject: RQR: Re: RQ Rules Digest: V1 #78 Steve Perrin asks ... >>One complaint about the RQ system is constant dice rolling of attacks and parries. Many consider the parries (and defense in RQ3) too much hassle. What's everyone's opinions on this? Aside from problems of backward compatibility (which is a major consideration), what are your opinions of the esthetics? Does having the responsibility for successful defense in the hands of the defender a major attraction or liability? Has this system turned off people you have tried to introduce to the rules? << It would be simpler to make attacks an opposed roll based on attacker skill vs. parry skill = 1 roll by attacker or defender. But one of the elements of FRP is that rolling the dice substitutes for an action. I feel like I am parrying when I roll parry dice, so if the roll were dropped it would feel a lot more like D&D. A combat system which many people like- but has a really different feel from the RQ combat. Leave in the cumbersome combat system, it differentiates the product and makes combats seem more realistic. ------------------------------ From: SPerrin@aol.com Date: Sat, 11 Feb 1995 14:54:49 -0500 Subject: Re: RQR: Sorcery playtest Kirsten, Sounds like a good try. Can you give us a more detailed explanation of the sorcery rules? I guess I'm not enough of a Glorantha "grognard" (thanks to everyone who has been explaining the term--all these years I've assumed it meant rules mechanic without the overlay of old-guard-rules-defender--it makes much more sense in context now) to be very worried about different Traditions of sorcery; I just want to see how the base rules work. How about tossing a multi-Manipulation sorcerer in on the badguy side? Maybe you could get a playtester to play this worthy so you don't have to worry about the character and running the game? I look forward to the report. Steve Perrin ------------------------------ From: SPerrin@aol.com Date: Sat, 11 Feb 1995 14:50:05 -0500 Subject: Re: RQR: Runes & Sorcery Mike Cule says: >> I wanted some way of including the Runes in Gloranthan Sorcery. I have two proposals to put forward to achieve this:<< >>1) Use the Runes as background skills used, ... in researching and learning spells.... these are Hard skills. Mastery-Lore, Darkness-Lore, perhaps? << >> If you allow improvised magic then these skills could be used for the effects, but no spell would need just one <>-Lore skill. Two at least would be needed and this would reduce casting chances.<< Then you are saying that if I have a sorcery skill of 75%, a Darkness Lore of 55% and a Life Lore of 63%, then the chance of casting the Dark Death spell is 55% (the Darkness %ile)? Or would there just be some kind of less drastic reduction to sorcery? >>2) ...a mechanism that involves the Mage's other important characteristic, POW?... The Mage could be limited in the number of Runes he is bound to [and thus could use] by his POW.<< I don't see this as an alternative suggestion but a complementary one. This doesn't just apply to Gloranthan runes. It could be used for any symbol system. It would also help along the idea of Rune Questing outside Glorantha... >>Just suggestions. Mike Cule<< And very inspiring ones. Steve Perrin ------------------------------ From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 1995 17:20:36 +0500 Subject: RQR: Re: RQ Rules Digest: V1 #72 Paul Reilly here. Brent Krupp wrote: >This raises the old topic of how characteristics are either linear or >logarithmic depending on the situation (i.e. resistance table or not). >I don't recall this one being satisfactorily resolved last time. Umm, count me as a long-time logarithmic person. I.e., keep the resistance table and go back to RQ2 numbers for things like the Crimson Bat's stats; don't use linear addition when people combine their efforts, etc. ------- Graeme Lindsell wrote: > A few words in support of a single "Cast Spirit Magic" skill Years and years ago I wrote something (I think I put on the Digest) about running low-magic campaigns. One feature was to take the old Focussed/Unfocussed distinction (usually Focussed on Self, Unfocussed on Others) from RQ 2 and use it to know when a new skill, "Focussing", must be used to cast spirit magic. The "unfocussed" magic was hardly thought of as magic at all. For example, Fanaticism on Self was just interpreted as the "act of will" which turned on an aggresive fighter's all-out efforts. "Strength" on self would be like those urban legends of the grandmother lifting the car off a trapped child, etc. Even "Healing" could be interpreted as basically non-magic: you are knocked down by a blow, check to see if you are OK, and find that the area just creased your scalp: a lot of blood but no real damage. I.e., the PLAYER decides when to use "magic" but the CHARACTER may think of it as "luck" or "willpower" instead. And MPs keep track of your luck/willpower running out... All this was back in the '80s when I was running Fantasy Earth... everybody casting spells just seemed wrong for a quasi-historical campaign. Focussing was for professional magicians. --------- ------------------------------ From: Ross Stites Date: Sat, 11 Feb 1995 16:44:31 -0600 (CST) Subject: RE: RQR: Re: Attacks and Parries >One complaint about the RQ system is constant dice rolling of attacks and >parries. Many consider the parries (and defense in RQ3) too much hassle. > >What's everyone's opinions on this? Aside from problems of backward >compatibility (which is a major consideration), what are your opinions of the >esthetics? Does having the responsibility for successful defense in the hands >of the defender a major attraction or liability? Has this system turned off >people you have tried to introduce to the rules? Personally, I like parries. I should say I like the 'feel' of parries. That way when I off some player's character, it is because his character failed to parry not because the trollkin got in a lucky shot. I know that analytically we could acheive the same thing with one roll, but it just wouldn't feel right. I play in a group where we don't roll for parries. We run it much like the stat vs. stat system for RQ. If Joe Orlanthi (sword attack 72% / parry 67%) attacks a trollkin (mace attack 53%/ parry 51%) his chances of hitting are 50% + his attack - trollkins parry (71%). His chance of being hit is 36%. This works fairly well and significantly speeds up combat for Rune lvl characters. It also makes going first much more important than in the standard rules. Ross ------------------------------ From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 1995 18:29:41 +0500 Subject: RQR: Re: Support for exponential stats Paul R. replying to Kirsten Jacobus: "Look at the SIZ vs. mass chart in RQIII. The table is degenerate at low levels, but once you get to SIZ 8, you have 50kg, doubling at every +8 SIZ. STR explicitly follows the same scale as SIZ. Other attributes are utterly undefined." Except by the resistance table, which makes sense pretty much only for exponential stats. How about using the SIZ vs. mass table as a guide for MP vs POW also? 6 ENC on mass table = 1 MP on MP vs POW table. Thus: once you get to POW 8, you have 8 MP, doubling at every +8 POW Hence 24 POW has 32 MP; 32 POW has 64 MP; etc. Rescale Cwim, The Crimson Bat, etc. onto this scale... thus a 2000 POW Elder Secrets monster becomes... uhh... 112 POW, 2048 MP. Hmm. Could work. And then the resistance table make sense again. -pr ------------------------------ From: David Dunham (via RadioMail) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 1995 16:01:28 -0800 Subject: RQR: Re: Defense Roll I always liked the concept of Fantasy Europe; in fact, the first-ever RuneQuest 3 tournament was set in Fantasy Europe (I ran "The Mongol Menace" at Origins 84, before RQ3 actually came out). Steve Perrin asked >One complaint about the RQ system is constant dice rolling of attacks and >parries. Many consider the parries (and defense in RQ3) too much hassle. > >What's everyone's opinions on this? Aside from problems of backward >compatibility (which is a major consideration), what are your opinions of the >esthetics? Does having the responsibility for successful defense in the hands >of the defender a major attraction or liability? Has this system turned off >people you have tried to introduce to the rules? I think it's too much hassle for two reasons (extra roll, and the parry/dodge usually means nothing significant happens in a round so combat lasts too long). However, a couple of the players in my PenDragon Pass (East Ralios) campaign complain that they don't get a parry; they feel naked without that explicit roll. Both complainers are long-time RQ players (dating back to RQ2). PDP players who have never played RQ don't seem to be clamoring for a defense roll, however. ------------------------------ From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 1995 19:33:07 +0500 Subject: RQR: Re: RQ Rules Digest: V1 #70 Would someone repost my last Vessel rules? (From two years ago...) I would like someone elso to repost them to involve a neutral third party. - -paul reilly ------------------------------ From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 95 19:34:20 -0500 Subject: RQR: Rescaling MP vs. a truly exponential POW I think I'm going to try that. POW and MP are 1 to 1 at eight or lower, then MP doubles every eight. At normal levels, that isn't too gross a gain in my campaigns. It also gives us a reason to call "MP" something other than "temporary POW" or whatever it used to be called. Finally, it puts POW into the same scale as STR+SIZ (By the way, some rough momentum calculations vs. a few weapons gives a fairly rough exponential correspondence between one of the physics energy/momentum/ force measurements and the RQ damage scale. It's as ugly as a five-dollar hooker, but the correlation is there.) ------------------------------ From: akuma@netcom.com (Steven E Barnes) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 1995 16:38:10 -0800 Subject: Re: RQR: Rescaling MP vs. a truly exponential POW >I think I'm going to try that. > >POW and MP are 1 to 1 at eight or lower, then MP doubles every eight. > >At normal levels, that isn't too gross a gain in my campaigns. It also gives >us a reason to call "MP" something other than "temporary POW" or whatever >it used to be called. I like it too :-). Actually I'm working on something more radical, but don't know if it will ever appear on this list... - -steve ------------------------------ From: mikec@room3b.demon.co.uk (Mike Cule) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 1995 00:30:13 GMT Subject: RQR: Re: grognards Hmm, so that's what it means... Well, to quote Dean Inge: There are two kinds of fool. One says, this is old therefore it is good. The other says, this is new, therefore it is better. - -- Mike Cule ------------------------------ End of RQ Rules Digest: V1 #79 ****************************** 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.