From: owner-rq-rules-digest To: rq-rules-digest@hops.wharton.upenn.edu Subject: RQ Rules Digest: V1 #93 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 093 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 Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox. RQR: game balance Nils Weinander RQR: POW vs POW Nils Weinander RQR: RQ2 defense correction Loren Miller RQR: Administrivia, getting rid of RQR on Loren Miller RQR: game balance Troll RQR: compatibility (and further heresy) Troll RQR: who improves? Troll RQR: Use of a divine pool Kirsten Jacobus RQR: Canonical Glorantha Kirsten Jacobus RQR: Divine Power and the "Group Pool" NDROBINS@NDROBINS.FIN.GOV.BC RQR: RQ:GURPS Loren Miller RQR: Divine Power and the "Group Pool" Majordomo RQR: Runepoints and Heropaths (fwd) Brent Michael Krupp RQR: Defense was a pain in the butt... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 05:36:59 PST Subject: Re: RQR: game balance Charlie Domino writes: >The one thing that I've missed so far in the debate is a serious >attempt to "outguess the player." In other words, if we make >certain changes to the game system, in which direction will the >players run with the ball? How will it affect that mythical icon, >game balance? We did this a lot with the RQ4 list. I imagine that this time people are seeking to reduce bandwidth and reduce the number of messages that they post. However I might as well examine a few points. These comments do come from second guessing the player as events have conspired to prevent this week's playtest session from occurring. >Abolishing MP's is a major alteration to 20 years of RQ. >Aside from alienating both RQ2 and RQ3 players/gm's for the sake >of some abstract Unified Game Theory, I don't see much in favor of >this. A more direct critique of Steve Perrin's MP-less system is that a character with a high POW could cast Battle Magic pretty reliably and constantly as long as he kept an eye on the intensities of the spells he was casting and became more cautious after a few failutres of fumbles. Low POW characters might refrain altogether from casting battle Magic as it would risk lowering their already low POW. >Tying the RL and RP to their intiate base and taking spell >selection out of the player's hands is a major ripoff. Granted >from a cultural or religious standpoint, it is a defensible idea, >but for MGF, it sucks royally. If players start as initiates >(seems to be normal in RQ3), there needs to be a worthwile goal for >them. Attaining a cult status that removes spell choices to the >GM will be no fun for either; think of the GM who has to decide how >many followers will give his player spells ("well, there's seven >priests at your temple, and there are 306 initiates spread out >among six tribes, but you're the junior priest, so only 1/20th of >them are "assigned" to you, and let's see how many got a pow check >this year...."). Well the game is not D&D. By the time someone becomes a Priest or a RuneLord they will have no doubt contributed to anothers' pool of RunePower Divine Magic and know their congregation. This could be a body of people that the candidate priest will have helped, healed, rescued and ransomed. For my suggestion was that Initiates sacrifice for specific Divine Magic and donates it to the Priest or RuneLord adding to the number of points in the pool and/or increasing the range of Divine Magic that can be drawn from the pool. Initiates that hold a recipient in high regard would donate something that would be appreciated. If a RuneLord or Priest has strived for the cult then this would be reflected in what he receives. I would envisage such a pool to be supplementary to regular Divine Magic that the Rune level character receives after all so no choice is removed at all. His pool is a bonus and would reflect his standing in the community. Regards -- Guy Robinson -- ------------------------------ From: niwe@ppvku.ericsson.se (Nils Weinander) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 95 15:28:52 +0100 Subject: RQR: POW vs POW Charlie Domino: > Also, I like the idea of scaling the MP upwards instead of a >strict 1-1 ratio; though I favor the curve beginning at 8 Pow as has been >suggested before. When a resistance roll is needed though, I favor Pow >vs. Pow, not MP vs. MP. This has several effects: > > 1. Flattens the curve for spirit combat; a five point difference >is nearly insurmountable without magic. > 2. Keeps a player from being "befuddle bait" right after casting >protection 4 or that needed healing. > 3. Ups the amount of spell casting a player can do (under an MP >fueled system). 4. A lot easier to keep track of, i.e. no need to recalculate chances every round depending on the amount of magic used. I think it's an excellent idea. /Nils W ------------------------------ From: niwe@ppvku.ericsson.se (Nils Weinander) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 95 15:42:01 +0100 Subject: RQR: RQ2 defense correction Me: >I think RQ2 is an excellent mechanic. Should read I think RQ2 Defense is an excellent mechanic. /Nils W ------------------------------ From: Loren Miller Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 10:17:30 -0500 (EST) Subject: RQR: Administrivia, getting rid of RQR on subject line I find that the RQR tag on the subject line isn't really all that helpful, and it screws up automatic indexing in the archives too, so if there are no great outcries I'll disable it tomorrow morning. - -- +++++++++++++++++++++++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: "Loren Miller" Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 11:14:27 EST Subject: Re: RQR: game balance I think the reason that we haven't been tearing these proposals down so far is that we are in a brainstorming mode. When brainstorming it's more constructive to just throw up the structures as fast as you can, and then later when in a reflective mode tear the crap down and leave the good stuff standing. - -- +++++++++++++++++++++++23 Loren Miller LOREN@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Life at the water's edge is the real life for men and women ------------------------------ From: Troll@nochet.demon.co.uk (Troll) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 13:08:36 GMT Subject: Re: RQR: compatibility (and further heresy) In your message dated Wednesday 15, February 1995 you wrote : > This is begging the question, really. *Which* canonical Glorantha? The > RQ2 canonical Glorantha, the pre-KoS RQ3 canonical Glorantha, the post-KoS > canonical Glorantha? Oh and let's not forget that Chaosium are already writing a Glorantha RPG as well, which in all honesty I might just prefer to jump with if some of the stuff flotaing around here is kosher. > 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. Now, if it was RuneQuest, not much to do with Glorantha, then maybe I could cope with all this better. But to be honest it took ages to convince me to open and learn the minor changes in Elric!, so god knows about the stuff here. I must be too old or too busy at work. - -- Troll N'Uz Krang ------------------------------ From: Troll@nochet.demon.co.uk (Troll) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 13:11:29 GMT Subject: Re: Re: RQR: Re: who improves? In your message dated Tuesday 14, February 1995 you wrote : > It seems that everybody who takes on this project wants to be an > auteur who can rewrite it totally. Yes! That is what is wrong. I just want a slightly tidier RQ with a few revsions, what I keep hearing are new games systems. Maybe they would be fun, and if so, maybe we shouldn't call them RQ, not set them in Glorantha at all. I like Questworld, even had a chuckle over Magic World, but RQ is too fundamental to me to blow away so heavily. - -- Troll N'Uz Krang ------------------------------ From: Troll@nochet.demon.co.uk (Troll) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 13:14:07 GMT Subject: Re: RQR: Use of a divine pool In your message dated Tuesday 14, February 1995 you wrote : > "Make me the Sword that is Death!" > > This was the DI cry of a Hueymakti in the face of an army of Broo. > > Now, under the RQ:AiG rules that later became suggestions, the Duck lost > all but two POW (due to the roll) and got a pile of divine magic (Truesword, > Humakt Berserk, the rest as Shield). > > Under the RQIII non-rules for DI, we'd have no idea what to do. > As a referee one should have a good idea of what is appropriate for the god and the PC. In the rulebook you should have a page that explains the nature of DI and the limitations. It could be lifted from one of a dozen such mails/articles that have been written already. It would not be rules, but it would avoid a mechanistic and rules based approach to what should be an imaginitive and interpreted event. - -- Troll N'Uz Krang ------------------------------ From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu (Kirsten Jacobus) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 95 12:26:32 -0500 Subject: RQR: Canonical Glorantha Canonical is whatever Greg says it is in the last ten minutes. Currently, that's post-King of Sarter. If the rules define the canon, then the relationship of the rules to the setting is ass-backwards. The canon should determine the rules. ------------------------------ From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu (Kirsten Jacobus) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 95 12:35:39 -0500 Subject: RQR: Divine Power and the "Group Pool" Yaknow, if Divine Power is adopted, and a "wyter-like" mechanic is also added, and Lords/Priests/whatnot get access to this Wyter, could it also not be a requirement to become a Lord/Priest/whatnot to have previously made a minimum permanent POW donation to this Wyter in addition to minimum amounts of magic known? ------------------------------ From: NDROBINS@NDROBINS.FIN.GOV.BC.CA Date: Wed, 15 Feb 95 09:28:40 PST Subject: RQR: RQ:GURPS Neil Robinson here. My Romulan lurking device is on the fritz so I thought I would comment... All this talk about non-gloranthanising RQ brings me up to the problems I have with GURPS and Fantasy Hero. They are rules without a culture or background, and without that context, new GMs tend to put characters in a world filled with a hodge=podge of monsters and deities that just don't work together. I'm not even going to bring up the D&D stuff that first came out... I'm not against rounding out RQ so that it better supports non-gloranthan worlds, but I don't want genericism for the sake of genericism. The RQ-Earth series, or something like it, had better get fast-tracked to justify the new system. I cut my teeth GMing on the Viking suppliment, and the Lands of the Ninja was good as well. There just needed to be more followup - and with adventures in them (like Vikings). That's my problem with the GURPS world packs. On a similar thread, my friends and I just put up signs at the two local gaming stores asking for RQ/Glorantha players both past and present. No calls so far.... (Victoria BC Canada) That says it all, doesn't it. Other topics: POW vs POW resistance rolls. I like it that magically exhausted characters get weaker and easier to affect, but agree that the MP vs MP rolls may be extreme. We have a high-combat game where a 'death with a blade' Vormain 'samurai' is constantly getting befuddled in the first round of combat after he casts two low-power spells. Spirit magic based entirely on spirits. I think that this system should just be a way of adding flavour to the current system. Orlanthi cast fanatism by working themselves up, but a Praxian nomad gets a small bird spirit into his arrow to allow it to hit better (speeddart). Neil _______________________________________________________________ Neil Robinson NDROBINS@NDROBINS.FIN.GOV.BC.CA ------------------------------ From: Loren Miller Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 12:55:06 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: RQR: Divine Power and the "Group Pool" WRT a minimum POW donation to the wyter as a requirement for ascension to rune rank. I agree. I think that would be a good thing. To expand on why the wyter or something like it would be a good thing, unlike D&D characters, RQ characters are not rootless wanderers with no family or temple or clan ties. When they contribute to a communal resource they can expect to take advantage of it later in their career, when they are important in their community. This encourages accurate roleplay of things like homesickness and the like, and I think it helps MGF rather than harming it. I also have a rules-construct that would encourage characters to contribute to their wyter. For initiated characters of rune level (who are essentially minor avatars of their god) their maximum POW is either species max or the amount of POW they've contributed to the wyter, whichever is greater (!!!). - -- +++++++++++++++++++++++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: Majordomo Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 13:28:54 -0500 (EST) Subject: RQR: Runepoints and Heropaths (fwd) Forwarded message: From postmaster@hops.wharton.upenn.edu Wed Feb 15 11:38:30 1995 X400-Received: by /PRMD=METRO-SEATTLE/ADMD=MCI/C=US/; Relayed; Wed, 15 Feb 1995 08:37:30 +0800 Alternate-recipient: prohibited Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 08:37:30 +0800 From: RICHARJE Subject: Runepoints and Heropaths To: "O=PMDF; DDA.TYPE=RFC-822; DDA.VALUE=owner-rq-rules-digest(a)hops.wharton.upenn.edu" Message-id: <0002A4A2.MAI*/S=RICHARJE/DD.MSPOST=COUNCIL/DD.NET=METROKC/O=MSMW/PRMD=METRO-SEATTLE/ADMD=MCI/C=US/@MHS> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT UA-content-id: CSI NC V3.0 X400-MTS-identifier: [/PRMD=METRO-SEATTLE/ADMD=MCI/C=US/;950215003730] I seems that the perennial RunePower/No RunePower debate rages once again. Well, I might as well put my two cents in. In my campaign I use a modified RunePower system for divine magic. Players sacrifice for RunePower Points as in the RunePower system, however they must learn Heropaths of their god to use the RunePower. Each Heropath corresponds to a (old-style) Divine Magic Spell known by the cult (e.g. Worship Orlanth, Thunderbolt, Shield, etc.). A Heropath is an insight into the god that is taught through cult rituals and ceremonies (roughly similar to the the ceremony one had to follow to learn Divine Magic in the old system). So let's give an example. Hauptman Sveirtigson knows the following Heropaths of Orlanth (gained through ceremonies in the subcults of Thunderer and Warrior): Thunderbolt, Heal Wound, Worship Orlanth, Divination, Shield and Cloud Call. He also has three RunePoints with Orlanth. Therefore Hauptman can spend his RunePoints on those Heropaths and only those Heropaths. If Hauptman wants to cast Wind Words with his RunePoints he's out of luck. In play, this system has combined the best of the RunePont system (flexibility) and the best of the traditional Divine Magic (forcing the PC's to undergo ceremonies to know spells). Furthermore, this system has increased player interest in subcults and regional variations of the cult that might teach them new Heropaths that add up to a greater understanding of the god. Yours truly, Jeff Richard ------------------------------ From: Brent Michael Krupp Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 11:13:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: RQR: Defense was a pain in the butt... On Wed, 15 Feb 1995, Nils Weinander wrote: > Should read I think RQ2 Defense is an excellent mechanic. The problem with using it is the constant need for the referee to tell the players the defense values for all their opponents so they can calculate their chances to hit, and the constant need for the referee to do minor arithmetic (easy individually, but over and over and over) before every single roll of the opponent's attack rolls. It's like AD&D and Armor Class - -- you have to factor in the opponent's value, and can't just roll. Refereeing RQ is only bearable *because* you need only roll attack and let the players worry about rolling parry or whatnot. 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 #93 ****************************** 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.