From: owner-rq-rules-digest To: rq-rules-digest@hops.wharton.upenn.edu Subject: RQ Rules Digest: V1 #82 Reply-To: rq-rules Errors-To: owner-rq-rules-digest Precedence: bulk Content-Return: Prohibited Return-Path: owner-rq-rules-digest RQ Rules Digest: Monday, 13 February 1995 Volume 01 : Number 082 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 David Cake RQR: RQ Rules Digest: V1 #80 David Cake RQR: Sorcery Loren Miller RQR: Attacks and Parries ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: davidc@cs.uwa.edu.au (David Cake) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 09:54:52 +0800 Subject: Re: RQR: Re: RQ Rules Digest: V1 #80 >>>It would be simpler to make attacks an opposed roll based on attacker skill >>>vs. parry skill = 1 roll by attacker or defender. > >>Arrrgh! Please don't make us use the resistance table for each and >every >combat roll! > >I am not suggesting it as I like the parry/defense roll. But statistically >you can easily generate 1 roll that incorporates both. This might be a nice >simplification for those who see RQ combat as too cumbersome. Ditto the >comments trying to remove the specific damage to location rules -- simpler >but a different feel. Less "realistic". > In order to make a moderately reasonable combat system, you need to take into account skill on both sides. RQ uses separate rolls, other games do use opposed rolls. Chamions, for example, uses something reasonably similar in game mechanics to this proposal. It works quite well (and no, Champions reputation for overcomplication comes mostly from character creation rather than combat). >Re: Human Sacrafice > >Humakt is too civilized for these kind of rituals > Well, Humakts honourable nature may cause him to put his human sacrifice rituals in the form of duels. I am sure that some of the nastier Humakt cults some places (such as the Kingdom of War) use some sort of human sacrifice ritual, even if it consists of one on one duels with a hyped up Sword. Cheers Dave ------------------------------ From: davidc@cs.uwa.edu.au (David Cake) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 10:24:27 +0800 Subject: Re: RQR: Re: Sorcery > >What I am primarily proposing is that such skills are used in learning old >(established) spells and creating new ones. To understand the mechanics behind >the Dark Death spell then you need the theory. Your spell skill once learned >could exceed the theory skills (you learn all sorts of things by practice that >theory can't help you with.) > >But to create a Dark Death Spell off the top of your head you would need to >roll *both* Dark-Lore and Death-Lore which reduces your chance still further >(to 63% of 55%, if I remember O-Level Maths correctly). > Which, while an interesting suggestion, does add a whole bunch more skills for sorcerers to learn, and they already labour under a worse skill load than anybody. So either you can be taught a spell without knowing the theory skills (in which case they will be very rare), or they serve to make sorcerers even more useless. As to creating new spells, I always figured that sorcerers did it the same way as most other folks - HeroQuesting. Different paths entirely, and a very different approach, but HeroQuesting none the less. Interesting suggestions, and I like the idea, but I don't like them as described. > >I'd also like to comment on the fellow who said (sorry for my rotten memory for >names. I should keep better notes) that there are very few verbs among the >Gloranthan Runes. Well, many more than the ones you mention can be used as >verbs >(Movement, Harmony, Death/Seperation, Disorder, Fertility, Stasis, even Truth) >but on the other hand I agree that Mastery, Magic and Law are the most useful >ones. Why do you think Malkioni sorcerers have them plastered all over their >robes? > It was me. I agree that Power runes can also usually be used as verbs. If you do so, however, most spells make perfect sense with only one Runic connection (unless you add Mastery to everything). This is fine by me, but for some reason poeple seem to think if would be better if most spells had more than one Runic association. >And on the third tentacle, why do we need a verb/noun structure at all? > We don't. But if you are going to have more than one correspondence for each spell, verb-noun seems to be the most organised way to do it. It is also the way Ars Magica works. It seemed to be the way most Runic sorcery systems work. Personally, I think it works very badly with Gloranthan runes. >I must agree with those who call for maximum backwards compatibility with RQ3 >and RQ2 in the rewrite. But I must call for a total rewrite on Sorcery. The >system is so badly bodged (My pet hate is the Familiar rules) that it needs a >total rethink. > Well, a very big rethink. While most people seem to favour retaining some things from the old system (similar spell lists, for example), most people want the mechanics changed a great deal. Free INT goes! I want sorcery to still be able to do all the things it could before, but I am happy if it uses completely different mechanics (except it should remain skill based). >Oh, and I used RQ3 from the moment I could afford to buy a copy. I know some >people who have stuck to RQ2 but regard them as ecccentrics. > Me too. Cheers Dave Cake >-- >Mike Cule ------------------------------ From: Loren Miller Date: Sun, 12 Feb 1995 21:43:05 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: RQR: Re: Attacks and Parries I always thought that the attack roll and parry roll were a good thing. I think that my players agree. - -- +++++++++++++++++++++++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 ------------------------------ End of RQ Rules Digest: V1 #82 ****************************** 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.