From: owner-rq-rules-digest To: rq-rules-digest@hops.wharton.upenn.edu Subject: RQ Rules Digest: V1 #87 Reply-To: rq-rules Errors-To: owner-rq-rules-digest Precedence: bulk Content-Return: Prohibited Return-Path: owner-rq-rules-digest RQ Rules Digest: Tuesday, 14 February 1995 Volume 01 : Number 087 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 ANDOVER@delphi.com RQR: No to Runepower Nils Weinander RQR: Limited experience checks Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox. RQR: Sorcery Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox. RQR: More RQ IV ideas Malcolm Cohen RQR: No to Runepower Peter Donald RQR: compatibility Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox. RQR: compatibility Nigel Smith RQR: Support for expo... Troll RQR: To parry or not to parry Troll RQR: More RQ IV ideas Loren Miller RQR: Support for expo... Brent Michael Krupp RQR: More RQ IV ideas ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: ANDOVER@delphi.com Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 00:15:43 -0500 (EST) Subject: RQR: No to Runepower Hate to disagree with my good friend David Cheng, but I think that Runepower is basically a BAD idea! Ruins backward compatibility, for what?: to make divine magic users MORE powerful? Talk about a solution to a non-problem! The main complaint against sacrificing for specific spells seems to be that you aren't sure when you will need them! Fine by me: poeple ought to think. I must say, in the games I have GMd or played, everyone has NOT taken the same spells! Jim Chapin ------------------------------ From: niwe@ppvku.ericsson.se (Nils Weinander) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 95 09:16:52 +0100 Subject: RQR: Limited experience checks Ray Turney writes about experience checks: >The limit to five is to reduce the incentive to >unrealistic CheckQuest and the development of multi-skilled monsters of >the adventurer character class. I think there is a problem with limiting the number of checks from an adventure: it doesn't matter much to the warrior types who mostly use three skills: weapon attack, shield parry and missile weapon. However, a thief type character or a sorcerer needs and uses a large number of skills and gets short-changed if they can't advance them according to their use. So a check limit would serve the purpose of promoting one specific type or characters and is that really what we want to do? I think that it is the GM's responsibility to keep the players chech frenzy in check (pun intended). /Nils W ------------------------------ From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 00:45:14 PST Subject: RQR: Re: Sorcery Steve Perrin writes: >Bruce, >Some very good points. In particular, using the "runes" as a basis for magic >of all kinds (spirits embody one rune, gods several runes, sorcerers >manipulate rune relationships) does give a central theme to a newly generic >game. This all sounds very good to me. Another thing I would like to bring up is some justification for the Quest part of the RuneQuest. I see that by combining the aboriginal DreamTime and Socrates' Realm of the Forms you could come up with something very satisfactory for Questing. I would recommend that only those people who have build up enough affinity with the Runes and enough defintion from his society (as in the Humanist Existentialism of Jean Paul Sartre) would venture into the DreamTime and start to interact with the mythic Forms. I envisage the questing as a shamantic journey in an environment where such quests are objectively effective, albeit by subjective means. You can not do it alone for you first must become a legend before you dare to expose yourself to the terrible forces that may oppose you. PS. This year, for recreational purposes, I have been studying Philosophy at A-level and this has provided some excellent material. Utilitarian Experience for FUDGE anyone? Regards -- Guy Robinson -- ------------------------------ From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 01:26:22 PST Subject: RQR: Re: More RQ IV ideas First off Ray's ideas on sorcery look OK but I think they could frighten a few RQ3 Grognards. His Spirit System looks like a reasonable treatment of bound spirits but I feel that there remains a need for type of Battle Magic that both spirits and mortals can cast. This would further seperate shamantic and cult style magic resources, which seems to be an aim of Ray's. Ray Turney, through Steve Perrin, wrote: >Divine magic should work by some variant of the Runepower system, >where points are sacrificed but not for specific spells. I also favor >a channeling like skill to invoke divine magic, and initiates to be able >to regain divine magic, but only with a ceremony performed by a priest >or acolyte {and if the ceremony is fumbled they lose the points they were >trying to regain}. I would recommend that RunePower pools are the only Divine Magic that needs a channelling or ceremony role. And I would only recommend this if the RunePower pools can be used to cast all spells. I have an alternate proposal that I present below. For if Divine Magic has been sacrificed for specifically then the trade has occurred between mortal and god and the ability to cast the spell has been acquired. For would the gods want to be bothered by each power used by a loyal worshipper? The use of a ceremony for initiates to regain Divine Magic is good, as this allows the priest and the society to pace the recovery of Divine Magic as priorities dictate. You could gather in the Bless Crops people in for a fertility magic season or make sure people have their SunSpears ready in case of immenent attack. I would recommend that this Recovery Divine Magic restores one type of Divine Magic spell for each point cast and all recipiants have to sacrifice heavy amounts of Magic Points (or whatever RQ4 will have). The Priest would also realise if a given initate was refused recovery. >Being a priest is a title or office, depending on the >cult, not an aspiration of anyone who wants to use divine magic. Normally, >when a priesthood is created the worshippers who wish to create the title >or office sacrifice to the god to provide the priest with access to magic >he would not otherwise have ... and these points must be regained by >other members of the group who gave the priest these points. In effect a >priest is an expert in ceremony skill, who may have been given a separate >pool of sacrificed points by his congregation. Note that a character may >be consecrated a priest ... but unless he has a regular group of supporters >backing him all he gets for this is the right to lead ceremonies and any >one use POW sacrifice they may have given him when he became a priest. This is good as it stresses social co-operation. I would also recommend that such inaugral communal sacrifices are the primary, if not the only source of RunePower pools. The role of priest as an office and as a ceremony specialist is good as well. Prehaps these RunePower pools will be limited to casting the Divine Magic that were sacrificed to them as they are were created. This would mean that a priest could not cast any Cult Divine Magic he choose. Hence the congreation get to choose what to give him to a degree. ('Another Bless Crops? Why thank you farmer Bynamth...') >My reasoning in pushing for these changes is to increase the >flexibility of divine magic and make exotic rarely useful spells useful >additions to the god's armory, instead of having everyone take Shield. Good reasons. Although as your suggestions stand they could be a mite over flexible. >I push for initiates to get reusable divine magic because one use rune magic >has not proven to be a useful concept ... everyone hoards it to become a >priest. As it stands, everyone wants to become a priest, but I want initiate >to be the valuable status, and priest usually more of a social and political >status not something everyone pushes for in the normal line of their >character's development. I agree with this. >I want skill based invocation in the interests of >stylistic consistency {Divine magic is the only area where skills are not >currently fundamental to RQ}, to meet the widespread criticism that in RQ >the gods always answer and this is inappropriate, and to make characters >in divine magic using cultures to be forced to make the same tradeoffs of >normal skills vs. arcane ones that characters in sorcery and shamanistic >cultures do. I would suggest that skills for Divine Magic do reside in Ceremony. The gods do want to be pestered surely and they get a say when Divine Magic is sacrificed for, when Divine Magic is recovered and when they get a chance to speak through a Divinitation. Sounds pretty good to me. >Rune Lords should have the following advantages: >a) the skills their favors should become easy, but ones their god dislikes >or merely wasn't good at should become hard - in effect they walk in the >path of their god and this similarity mystically affects the learning process >by making them more like their deity; >b) rune lords should have access to a power pool sacrificed by others at >the time of their creation {just like priests}, but addable to and regainable >by, any other initiate. In effect, the RL is the sword of his cult and >this allows stay at home initiates to support him; >c) rune lords are customarily well equipped at the their cult's expense, with >the understanding that well equipped may mean iron armor in the Lunar Empire Sounds like a good rejig of the RuneLord/Priest status. I am in favour. >RL's no longer get special DI, since this power has made divine >intervention far too common. Also, this power is no longer needed. Prehaps Stormbringers Elan system might warrant some exploration. In this the equivalents of RLs and Priest can accumilate Elan which can either be traded in at 50 pts Elans for 1 pt of POW or used to call for Divine Intervention. This is just a proposal. Regards -- Guy Robinson -- ------------------------------ From: Malcolm Cohen Date: Tue, 14 Feb 95 11:11:38 WET Subject: Re: RQR: No to Runepower Jim Chapin wrote that Runepower: > Ruins backward compatibility, for what?: to make divine magic users MORE > powerful? Talk about a solution to a non-problem! Agree wrt the "straight" Runepower proposal; however, the modified Runepower (where you still have to sacrifice for the spells, but are free to spend your "Rune Points" casting any of the spells you know) IMO plays very well, increasing the flexibility (and opportunities for roleplaying(*)) without an excessive increase in power. It is also almost completely backwards compatible; the spell lists for RLs are still their spell lists. The only compatibility deficiency is where an RL has taken several castings of a non-stackable spell. I have no problem in ruling that the excess points are just general "Rune Points" and that the RL had no opportunity to learn a new spell at the time when these RP were gained. - -- ...........................Malcolm Cohen, NAG Ltd., Oxford, U.K. (malcolm@nag.co.uk) (*) by which I mean that the RL can then learn the necessary Bless Crops, Spell Teaching, etc. etc. spells; as it is there is a certain understandable player resistance to "wasting" their precious POW on yet another Bless Crops instead of getting their first point of Shield. ------------------------------ From: "Peter Donald" Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 07:20:33 -0400 (EDT) Subject: RQR: compatibility In message Mon, 13 Feb 1995 10:30:09 -0500, David Dunham (via RadioMail) writes: >>From: "Peter Donald" >> I may the the lone list heretic, but I'd >> really find it hard to care less whether or not RQ4 is compatible with >> RQ3 > But let's imagine you've never played RQ before, and you've just bought > RQ4. You decided to buy Sun County as well. So you read RQ4, it's got > pretty good rules. Then you decide to try out the Garhound Contest > scenario from Sun County, and you have to find the stat conversion > appendix in RQ4 and convert everything before you can use it. Do you > still feel good about your purchase? Yep - it's a good scenario, and looks like it should be worth the effort. (I'd also be quite pleased that AH had the common sense and decency to include a set of conversion notes, instead of leaving me to suss 'em out on my own). If I buy a copy of version n, and then I pick up a supplement written for version n-1, I pretty much expect to have to convert/modify/upgrade the stats and such to be compatible with the version I've got. - -- "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag and begin slitting throats."---------H. L. Mencken ------------------------------ From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 05:29:11 PST Subject: RQR: Re: compatibility Peter Donald wrote: >If I buy a copy of version n, >and then I pick up a supplement written for version n-1, I pretty >much expect to have to convert/modify/upgrade the stats and such to be >compatible with the version I've got. I'll second this. For I am pretty confident that Steve Perrin and Ray Turney, if given a free rein, can probably improve game mechanics and give the RuneQuest background a much needed spring-clean, albeit if only in the Generic book. With the RQ4 work to use a base I am pretty confident about this. And if any of these ideas or changes clashes with cannonical Glorantha they could always be changed back in the AiG book to support those Greg-compatable campiagns out there. Regards -- Guy Robinson -- ------------------------------ From: ns10005@hermes.cam.ac.uk (Nigel Smith) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 16:36:37 +0000 Subject: Re: RQR: Re: Support for expo... Loren: >presumably if MP were abolished then spirit combat would be changed to >be more analogous to physical combat. no more need for MP that way. And have Spirit Attack, Spirit Parry, etc? Why? POW is your characteristic Spiritual Strength, Magic Points your current spiritual strength, and the chance of you forcing a spirit to do what you want is a resistance roll based on your and the spirit's spiritual strengths. Elegant and simple. This only breaks down when a magically experienced character's POW has been suddenly reduced and what was an easy victory yesterday becomes today's crushing defeat. But I would say that this is correct. Most POW reductions of this scale are because of disease or DI, both are occasions where your self-confidence takes a battering. ------------------------------ From: Troll Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 12:09:03 GMT Subject: Re: RQR: To parry or not to parry In your message dated Monday 13, February 1995 you wrote : > > Didn't RQ2 have you subtract your defense from your > opponent's hit percentage? And it is was AWFUL - -- Troll N'Uz Krang ------------------------------ From: Troll Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 12:16:39 GMT Subject: Re: RQR: Re: More RQ IV ideas I am afraid that the more I read here of a proposed new RQIV the more I feel I am going to be as keen to stay with what I've got as some people were with RQ2... My needs are: A new character generation like that of RQIV drafts in circulation. Spirit magic descriptions. Some optional tweaks for combat. A totally new sorcery system or a workable version of the old one. A rule-book integrated with Glorantha. NOTHING else! Why the blinking hell rewrite all the perfectly usable bits? - -- Troll N'Uz Krang ------------------------------ From: Loren Miller Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 11:56:14 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: RQR: Re: Support for expo... Replying to Nigel Smith: Regarding the analogy of spirit combat to physical combat i was thinking more of the system that Steve Perrin had proposed where a successful attack inflicted some amount of damage to the defender, and if the damage exceeded some multiple of a threshold value determined by the defender's strength then a corresponding effect would be inflicted. Reread Guy's description of the trollkin fight to understand what this very abstract description would work out to in practice. - -- +++++++++++++++++++++++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: Brent Michael Krupp Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 09:17:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: RQR: Re: More RQ IV ideas On Tue, 14 Feb 1995, Troll wrote: > NOTHING else! Why the blinking hell rewrite all the perfectly usable bits? I would like to empahtically second this notion. I continue to be amazed and terrified at the prospect of RQ being almost entirely re-written in the name of a new "edition". An entirely new GAME is more like it, from what Steve Perrin has been suggesting (and from what he quoted of Ray Turney). If "RQ4" ends up being basically a new game, it'll be like when a movie "sequel" is made to an original that is years old. You end up with a crappy movie that claims the old name simply for marketing's sake, and also prevents any *decent* sequel from ever being made. 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 #87 ****************************** 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.