From: owner-rq-rules-digest To: rq-rules-digest@hops.wharton.upenn.edu Subject: RQ Rules Digest: V1 #92 Reply-To: rq-rules Errors-To: owner-rq-rules-digest Precedence: bulk Content-Return: Prohibited Return-Path: owner-rq-rules-digest RQ Rules Digest: Wednesday, 15 February 1995 Volume 01 : Number 092 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: RQ3 Problems David Cake RQR: who improves? Peter Donald RQR: compatibility (and further heresy) Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox. RQR: RQ3 Problems Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox. RQR: compatibility (and further heresy) David Cake RQR: RQ3 Problems Nils Weinander RQR: RQ2 defense ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: davidc@cs.uwa.edu.au (David Cake) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 14:34:53 +0800 Subject: Re: RQR: RQ3 Problems >Steve Perrin wrote: >>But why, Guy? Were they satisfied with RQ2? Did the setting turn them off? >>Did the lack of Glorantha turn them off? Was it a lack of runes? Why? > The more important question is not just what did they do wrong, but what should they have done instead. This is the difficult bit! In hindsight, what should RQ3 have done better. >The addition of sorcerers without any explaination of how they fitted into >the existing setting was a real shock. Why was RuneQuest being lead >away from the ancient world into a more D&D type fantasy period? > Releasing a Malkion write up would have helped. I found that the biggest problem with RQ3 sorcery was the alredy suspicious RQ2 players then looked at it closely, and noticed the rules were bad. Personally, I take this as more of a problem with not enough Gloranthan info being provided, rather than a problem with sorcery. >The rules where too complex and voluminous. RQ2 had managed to provide >a core of rules but RQ3 provided everything at a huge great price tag >that daunted a fair few people. When I saw the coverage given to >Boating as a skill it took me literally years to look at RQ3 again. > Unfortunately, very few people would want to throw such rules away. And the general concensus seems to be that putting 'advanced' rules in a separate supplement, a la 'standard'edition (that wasn't) or the GW editions, sucks immensely. Is this an insolvable problem? can we ever satisfy the simple and complex camps at the same time. Apparently not if you are Guy, who is appalled by the mere existence of such rules (Ok, there may have been a hint of hyperbole in Guys post). Will labelling such rules 'optional' work? Personally, I like having decent rules for most things available. This adds up to quit a lot of rules. >It was inspiration that was lacking in RQ3. RQ2 was a good attempt to >show an interesting world (that resembled the Literalist Glorantha) >that certainly inspired me. In RQ3 there were watered down comments >abot divine archetypes, delivered whole like Dieties and Demigods >rather than ambigious magical and cultural forces like Cults of Prax >or those other thought provoking source books. > The Glorantha book was bundled with the Deluxe edition. Assuming that we cannot have a Gloranthan RQ, is a separate Glorantha book (with bland, generic deities in the rules book, I assume) enough. Again, seemingly not if you are Guy. Personally, I liked the generic deities, because I never assumed that they were anything other than examples, and it was mildly useful in RQ earth campaigns, especially when I didn't know that much about a particular religion. >A symptom of this change was that the Runes had disappeared like many >benefits that RuneLords and Priests enjoyed. The social nature of >the RQ game where you had to integrate to develop in magical and >secular power had wained. In its place the social issolation of >other games had crept in somehow. > Again, the Deluxe edition included Runes. If it wasn't the deluxe edition, (eg the GW edition) then I find other criticisms harder to credit. The Deluxe edition was the one that was outrageously expensive. >So it was not the lack of Glorantha or the Runes per se but the >retro-active wrecking of the concepts people had enjoyed and on which >the balance of power their campiagns had been established. > The changes to Lords and Priests made a lot of difference. The most powerful characters are always those effected most by rules changes. >I with the benefit of hindsight I feel that RQ3 was an attempt to write >what GURPS has become. There was nothing to get people up and running >just material that contradicted RQ2 and provided no alternatives. > I still definately feel that RQ3s failure was mostly a failure to promptly supply good supplements promptly, rather than a failure as a rules system. The outrageous price of the RQ3 boxed set was also a problem. But if, for example, the bulk of the material from River of Cradles (and apart from the adventure it is revision or even cut and paste work) had appeared within a few months of RQ3, it would have helped keep the RQ2 audience. If another long form cults book, similar to Cults of Prax but including things like Malkion, had appeared - Sandy says these were actually written, but never released! >The economic way to examine this would be to compare the market share >of RQ2 and RQ3. I would postulate the market share of RQ3 dropped >like a bomb in comparison to that of RQ2. > Market share may have gone down - but then again, most of the other games of the RQ2 vintage have either disappeared of metamorphosed beyond recognition. Traveller TNE is quietly failing to rekindle the Traveller community (and uses completely different mechanics anyway), T & T, Dragonquest, etc. Most games of RQs vintage are dead or dieing or going threw similar problems to RQ. The big exception is D&D, of course. I think RQ3 market share did drop, but I think it would be unfair to lay it all on the RQ3 project. In fact, now that I think of it, I can think of very few medieval fantasy games at all. Rolemaster/MERP, DnD, Ars Magica, and RQ would probably be the four biggest, unless I have forgotten something obvious. Gurps is hard to tell, by its very nature, but it might rate. Cheers David >Regards > > -- Guy Robinson -- ------------------------------ From: davidc@cs.uwa.edu.au (David Cake) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 14:44:01 +0800 Subject: Re: RQR: Re: who improves? >>I'd be happier if some poor, unimaginative GM who slogs along, >>trying to use the rules as written, cleans up and clarifies things. > There are a few bits that require major surgery. IMHO, one of those was character creation, and its just about done, and the other is sorcery. Everything else, I would rather change was evolutionary rather than revolutionary. >It seems that everybody who takes on this project wants to be an >auteur who can rewrite it totally. > > I agree. and it is definately a problem, in that half the time on this list is spent argueing about issues that are major changes to the game system. Unfortunately, I think RQ3 sorcery does need a major recreation. But very little else. Cheers Dave >-- >+++++++++++++++++++++++23 >Loren Miller LOREN@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu >Life at the water's edge is the real life for men and women ------------------------------ From: "Peter Donald" Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 02:05:20 -0400 (EDT) Subject: RQR: compatibility (and further heresy) In a message of Tue, 14 Feb 1995 12:15:10 -0500, Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com writes: [snip] > 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. This is begging the question, really. *Which* canonical Glorantha? The RQ2 canonical Glorantha, the pre-KoS RQ3 canonical Glorantha, the post-KoS canonical Glorantha? The rules, to a great extent, define the canon (I certainly don't recall a lot of arguments about the existence of Runelords before RQ3 came out, frexample). Taking this out of the purely Gloranthan context, if RQ4 is going to be successfully separated from Glorantha it's going to need greater flexibility in the magic systems, which still feel too much like Gloranthan artifacts to me - I'd like to see more internal variation (say include both old-fashioned divine magic *and* a Runepower-type system) and some discussion on how to fit the magic system(s) to the society. - -- "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: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 00:43:32 PST Subject: Re: RQR: RQ3 Problems David Cake replied to my message about RQ3 problems. Hyperbole in my messages? Hyperbole! Gulity as charged :-) This was a good, considered reply and one that warranted a considered response. >The more important question is not just what did they do wrong, but >what should they have done instead. This is the difficult bit! In >hindsight, what should RQ3 have done better. The first thing was that RQ3 was never sold cheap in the UK. The first boxes that appeared where more expensive than any other game and they where boxes, unexaminable. [RQ3 Sorcerery] >Releasing a Malkion write up would have helped. >I found that the biggest problem with RQ3 sorcery was the alredy >suspicious RQ2 players then looked at it closely, and noticed the rules >were bad. >Personally, I take this as more of a problem with not enough >Gloranthan info being provided, rather than a problem with sorcery. I would agree with this for information about Glorantha has been very slow in appearing and very patchy. This is why I am intrigued by the idea of a generic RQ that could still maintain the ability to inspire as RQ2 managed to. With hindsight I think RQ3 should have been to RQ2 what you recommend RQ4 to be in relation to RQ3. There was not enough support for the new ideas and what was left was lifeless and generic. [rules bulk] >Apparently not if you are Guy, who is appalled by the mere >existence of such rules (Ok, there may have been a hint of hyperbole in >Guys post). Will labelling such rules 'optional' work? The problem is that new rules did not add much value. I would rather the book space be used to inspire than to specify rules for Boating in the absence of being permitted to write about anything else. >Personally, I liked the generic deities, because I never assumed >that they were anything other than examples, and it was mildly useful in RQ >earth campaigns, especially when I didn't know that much about a particular >religion. I suppose that this would be an aid to an American but these religions were well-known to me, both through them being European and through my playing of other role-playing game that extensively relied on these gods for many years beforehand. I wanted more information on the concepts behind RuneQuest though not this common or garden material. >The changes to Lords and Priests made a lot of difference. The most >powerful characters are always those effected most by rules changes. It was not the lack of power but the fact that they were less interesting that I feel is symbollic of RQ3's failure to inspire. >I still definately feel that RQ3s failure was mostly a failure to >promptly supply good supplements promptly, rather than a failure as a rules >system. The outrageous price of the RQ3 boxed set was also a problem. I would agree that failure to support hastened the failure of RQ3 or prevented it reaching its potential. All that millarky with the Deluxe set and the Advanced set only made things worse. Regards -- Guy Robinson -- ------------------------------ From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 01:13:33 PST Subject: RQR: Re: compatibility (and further heresy) Peter Donald wrote: >In a message of Tue, 14 Feb 1995 12:15:10 -0500, >Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com writes: >[snip] >> 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. > This is begging the question, really. *Which* canonical Glorantha? The >RQ2 canonical Glorantha, the pre-KoS RQ3 canonical Glorantha, the post-KoS >canonical Glorantha? The rules, to a great extent, define the canon (I >certainly don't recall a lot of arguments about the existence of Runelords >before RQ3 came out, frexample). Yes, Glorantha is very fragmented. If you want to see discussions about cannonical Glorantha then read the RQ Digest where people are able to attempt to patch together Gloranthan Lore in a public forum so at least some people are able to reach a concensus. But the real definition of cannonical Glorantha is what Greg Stafford will allow to be published. Draw your own conclusions. >Taking this out of the purely Gloranthan context, if RQ4 is going >to be successfully separated from Glorantha it's going to need greater >flexibility in the magic systems, which still feel too much like Gloranthan >artifacts to me - I'd like to see more internal variation (say include both >old-fashioned divine magic *and* a Runepower-type system) and some >discussion on how to fit the magic system(s) to the society. If RQ4 is going to be successfully separated from Glorantha then something very similiar to what is occurring will need to happen. RQ itself will probably have to be dissected and reassembled so it serves both Glorantha and the concepts have have been under utilised due to Glorantha. This is not a job for the squeamish as before things become compatable again things will have to become uncompatable first I believe. The trick is to remember that two books have to be written and between them a market for two companies has to be created. I would actually tend to support your idea about Divine Magic. Regards -- Guy Robinson -- ------------------------------ From: davidc@cs.uwa.edu.au (David Cake) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 17:40:43 +0800 Subject: Re: RQR: RQ3 Problems >David Cake replied to my message about RQ3 problems. > >The first thing was that RQ3 was never sold cheap in the UK. The >first boxes that appeared where more expensive than any other game >and they where boxes, unexaminable. > I certainly agree that the outrageous price was a big problem. Looking back on it, the fact that I bought RQ3 almost straight away shows that I have been an RQ fanatic longer than I realise. AH certainly didn't understand pricing for the rpg market then, they seem to be getting somewhat more reasonable now - RQ prices are merely moderately high, not outrageous. >I would agree with this for information about Glorantha has been very >slow in appearing and very patchy. This is why I am intrigued by the >idea of a generic RQ that could still maintain the ability to inspire >as RQ2 managed to. > If the AIG book is quite big and complete, and released at the same time as the RQ4 rules, then it might work. Thinking about it, it probably does need to contain quite a bit of stuff, more than I had originally though. Things like a Malkion write up, and other really important gods (Yelm, Orlanth, 7 Mothers, Ernalda, some shamanic cults) probably should be in there. If we have sorcery, we should have sorcery schools. If we have shamans, we should have different shamanic cults/traditions. I would also like to stress (I've said it before, but not for a while), that the AIG book should have all the character creation information from Genertela:COTHW (the last 1/2 of the pink book) in there, revised for the new character creation system. Probably the character creation stuff from Elder Secrets as well, unless Elder Secrets is to be revised and reissued. And of course lots of general Glorantha information. You getting all this, Steve?? :-) BTW Steve, I even volunteer to do some of this if you want - I'd rather do it myself than have it left undone. >[rules bulk] >The problem is that new rules did not add much value. I would rather >the book space be used to inspire than to specify rules for Boating >in the absence of being permitted to write about anything else. > The adding value is a strictly relative value. To someone, they added enough value that they bothered to write and playtest them. You may never use the shipping rules, but they are pretty good. Best boating rules I've ever seen for an rpg, I guess - not that I've seen many... The question is, how do we make content that 'inspires'? RQ2 had a pretty small amount of 'inspiring' content that didn't make it to RQ3 eventually (considered as page count) - the introduction, the Runes section, some of the Rurik content, some of the stuff in the appendices. But it worked. (I think the introduction worked because when you first read RQ2, you had not the slightest idea what half of it was about :-)) How do we make such content? It is not, and indeed cannot be, just Gloranthan content. What do we do? >>Personally, I liked the generic deities, because I never assumed >>that they were anything other than examples, and it was mildly useful in RQ >>earth campaigns, especially when I didn't know that much about a particular >>religion. > >I suppose that this would be an aid to an American but these religions >were well-known to me, both through them being European and through my >playing of other role-playing game that extensively relied on these gods >for many years beforehand. I wanted more information on the concepts >behind RuneQuest though not this common or garden material. > Two misconceptions in this paragraph, one of them inconsequential (I come from a land Down Under, Perth, Western Australia to be exact). But the main misconception is in how I meant the generic writeups were useful. I meant that they were useful to someone who knows the real-world religion reasonably well, but has no game statistics, and needs to improvise quickly (possibly through laziness). If the players are going to travel through Greece for a session or two, it is a lot easier to just scribble 'Zeus = storm + ruling', rather than come up with a cult writeup. OK, not an incredibly useful thing, but I saw what they were trying to do, and it wasn't that bad. The big problem been is that a lot of the RQ2 grognards assumed that they were supposed to substitute for real cult writeups, rather than being just a throwaway temporary solution. Much the same applies to the GoG short form writeups too, come to think of it. >>The changes to Lords and Priests made a lot of difference. The most >>powerful characters are always those effected most by rules changes. > >It was not the lack of power but the fact that they were less interesting >that I feel is symbollic of RQ3's failure to inspire. > Something which for me was definately rectified by GoG, which removed the simple priest/lord/shaman system, and made things a lot more flexible, and interesting. I agree in some cases they were less distinctive, but it didn't bother me, as the bulk of the changes seemed to be an improvement. Except, of course, for people who didn't have GOG. They had merely a mention of Rune Lord status, with no actual examples. >>I still definately feel that RQ3s failure was mostly a failure to >>promptly supply good supplements promptly, rather than a failure as a rules >>system. The outrageous price of the RQ3 boxed set was also a problem. > >I would agree that failure to support hastened the failure of RQ3 or >prevented it reaching its potential. All that millarky with the Deluxe >set and the Advanced set only made things worse. > Indeed. AH did indeed make many marketing mistakes - but good games can survive marketing stupidity. I think that many people were not so much driven away from RQ, as drifted away while waiting for supplements to appear. Cheers David >Regards > > -- Guy Robinson -- ------------------------------ From: niwe@ppvku.ericsson.se (Nils Weinander) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 95 14:27:51 +0100 Subject: RQR: RQ2 defense Troll N'Uz Krang: >> Didn't RQ2 have you subtract your defense from your >> opponent's hit percentage? >And it is was AWFUL I think RQ2 is an excellent mechanic. If only heavily encumbered combatants receive a penalty to it I like it a lot. Defense is one of the great equalizers which can make life a little easier for the characters who are not armoured like tanks. /Nils W ------------------------------ End of RQ Rules Digest: V1 #92 ****************************** 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.