From: owner-rq-rules-digest To: rq-rules-digest@hops.wharton.upenn.edu Subject: RQ Rules Digest: V1 #96 Reply-To: rq-rules Errors-To: owner-rq-rules-digest Precedence: bulk Content-Return: Prohibited Return-Path: owner-rq-rules-digest RQ Rules Digest: Thursday, 16 February 1995 Volume 01 : Number 096 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 PAUL POFANDT RQR: Runepower pool and DI David Dunham via RadioMail RQR: RunePower; Shamans; Willpower Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox. RQR: Has anyone tried Elan? Nigel Smith RQR: No to Runepower Nigel Smith RQR: No to Runepower Nigel Smith RQR: Support for expo... Nigel Smith RQR: Spirit Combat The Troll RQR: More RQ IV ideas Mike Cule RQR: Will and Heroquesting Antoon Pardon RQR: Non-linear HP alex@dcs.gla.ac.uk RQR: Runepower pool and DI Joerg Baumgartner RQR: My ideas for reduced stats etc Joerg Baumgartner RQR: Sorry, Ray ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: PAUL POFANDT Date: Thu, 16 Feb 95 16:58:22 +1100 Subject: RQR: Runepower pool and DI G'day This has possibly been discussed already, but since I don't remember seeing anything on it, and since it's just struck me... Why not have the cost of DI taken out of your Runepower pool. The heavy cost od your DI is still paid in X points of POW, without permenantly debilitating the character. As a related question, has anyone ever tried using the Stormbringer ELAN rules in RQ instead of DI. Catch Ya. Paul. ------------------------------ From: David Dunham (via RadioMail) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 00:11:43 -0800 Subject: RQR: Re: RunePower; Shamans; Willpower Steve Perrin asked > So, in a more generic system, a follower of the Storm God would perform the >ceremony of Walking With the Wind, sacrificing POW in the process, and thus >gain the Flying Path. Later, he can perform the ceremony of Talking With The >Storm, sacrificing POW as part of the ceremony, and gain the Lightning Bolt >Path. Then, in a confrontation, he can conceivably make two uses of Flying to >get him away from the problem (or himself and a comrade away), or strike twice > with the Lightning. Um, I think you described the idea from David Cheng's original RunePower article. Jeff proposed learning Walking With The Wind _without_ sacrificing POW. POW would be sacrificed in a Swearing To The Wind Lord ceremony. What Jeff describes is in fact almost identical to spirit magic: you learn spells (Paths) and power them with reusable magic points (rune points). The difference is that spells don't have size limits, and rune points are reusable only very slowly. I think this similarity is actually a good thing. Ray suggests > A normal spirit magic using character has some combination of bound >spirits under his control which can be used to attack, support other >characters at a distance, or do things to himself that he cannot do for >himself This sounds to me like a shaman, not a normal character. Not all shamans discorporate, after all (the Mongol shaman I saw on film certainly didn't, she wore a special costume, beat a drum, and gave prophecies). Steve Barnes said >What I was getting at is there is the occasional >need to have the character make a "willpower roll" to do something >crazy, painful, or otherwise unpleasant. In Hero, this would be an >Ego Roll. RQ kind of skirts the issue by using other, sometimes >inappropriate stats for this purpose. And of course Pendragon gives you personality traits and passions for this kind of thing :-) ------------------------------ From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 00:16:20 PST Subject: RQR: Has anyone tried Elan? Paul Pofandt writes: >As a related question, has anyone ever tried using the Stormbringer >ELAN rules in RQ instead of DI. Earlier yesterday Mustapha Unlu posted his Satisfaction Point system that appears to be almost identical to Strombirngers Elan system. As someone who has played with Elan in Stormbringer the downside is that it lengthens the minimum write-up that a cult needs. Also it does tend to highten intercult conflict. Also people can attempt to min-max their Elan and practises even worse than the weapon caddy may be attempted. But apart from those potential problems it is a reasonable system. Regards -- Guy Robinson -- ------------------------------ From: ns10005@hermes.cam.ac.uk (Nigel Smith) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 08:53:25 +0000 Subject: Re: RQR: No to Runepower Talking about Divine Magic/Runepools, Steve Perrin said: > This leaves the question open whether the DM user would be able to say >"Father of War, please sever that bugger's spirit," or a more general appeal >such as "Father of War, please protect your servants from that giant." Such >questions, I'm sure, can be answered by the Savants Assembled. ...and someone else (Charlie?) spoke of using both pre-sacrificed spells and Runepower. Possibility: Pre-sacrificed spells go off faster/more reliably since 'god has already granted permission'. Runepower requests are slower/less reliable since 'god's attention must be gained'. Awful explanations, perhaps a more literate type will do better, but I hope you understand the idea. Nigel (trying to show he is not a total grognard) ------------------------------ From: ns10005@hermes.cam.ac.uk (Nigel Smith) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 08:53:17 +0000 Subject: Re: RQR: No to Runepower Malcolm Cohen wrote that modified Runepower: >IMO plays very well, increasing the flexibility (and opportunities for >>roleplaying(*)) without an excessive increase in power. > > >(*) 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. True - if you think that roleplaying means getting the best of both worlds. By sacrificing for specific spells the priest has to make the choice between helping himself or his flock - if you push the player from both sides this can lead to some interesting agonizing and fun Divination replies. Explaining to his friends why he doesn't have a Sunbright for those ghouls, explaining to his flock why he can't cast Bless Crops, *that's* roleplaying. Nigel ------------------------------ From: ns10005@hermes.cam.ac.uk (Nigel Smith) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 08:53:20 +0000 Subject: Re: RQR: Re: Support for expo... Re-replying to Loren: >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, Say, loss of 1D3 magic points if you win MP vs MP on the resistnce table. >and if the damage exceeded some multiple of a threshold value >determined by the defender's strength then a corresponding effect >would be inflicted. Perhaps 1D3+3 for a special success and 6 magic points for a critical? Assuming that we will still have magic points, of course. If there was skill involved in spirit combat then I would agree that a system analagous to the proposed physical combat system would make sense, if only because of consistency across the game mechanics. At present, however, such a combat is portrayed as a battle of wills - no skill, just strength of spirit. Or do you envisage a "true" combat, just moved away from the mundane plane? Nigel ------------------------------ From: ns10005@hermes.cam.ac.uk (Nigel Smith) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 08:53:22 +0000 Subject: Re: RQR: Spirit Combat I wrote: >>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. ..and Kirsten Jacobus replied: >So then you also advocate eliminating the current RQ combat system and >>replacing it with a set of resistance rolls based on a single physical >>attribute? > >STR is your characteristic Physical Strength, Fatigue your current spiritual >strength, and the chance of your forcing a person to do what you want is a >resistance roll based on your and the opponent's physical strengths. >Elegant and simple. > >This is what you want for physical combat, I would presume, since it is what >you want for spiritual combat. If it were a simple, instinctive physical combat, then yes! For instance, arm-wrestling, or knockback. IMO (no sources at work) spirit combat is simple and instinctive. The spirit hungers for your 'soul' and you must be pig-headed enough, have enough sense of self, to drive it away. There is no skill to it, you do not fight a spirit with logic, weapons or words. This is what makes it so frightening, to beginning and experienced adventurers alike. Note: I describe it as above because, except for 'controlled' situations such as spell-teaching, it is the spirit which will attack *you*, not vice versa. Nigel ------------------------------ From: Troll@nochet.demon.co.uk (The Troll) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 19:48:55 GMT Subject: Re: RQR: Re: More RQ IV ideas Well thank goodness for Brent Krupp and others. Now, let's agree that RQIV character gen was good, and then settle sorcery. - -- The Troll: Troll@nochet.demon.co.uk http://www.io.com/user/troll/index.html All views expressed are strictly my own. May the Darkness of Kyger Litor protect and shelter this mail. ------------------------------ From: Mike Cule Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 11:51:41 GMT Subject: RQR: Will and Heroquesting (This isn't really the place for this discussion. But since it started here...) My assumption has always been that Will is an ability to assert your own Reality over that of the Universe. (Comparisions with the Subjective Universe Magic of WW's MAGE are appropriate here.) On the Mundane Plane it can do little more than give you control over your own emotions and (sometimes) body. Which is why we use Will for suppressing rage, controlling pain and so on. On the God/Hero Plane you can use Will to make changes in the environment around you. But these changes will be wiped away by the greater Wills of the Gods unless you bind part of your Will into the fabric of the Universe to sustain the change. Thus when you return you have less Will to use in day-to-day events and eventually become rigidified into the Heroic role you have chosen. (The change must also be sustained by a Cult on the Mundane Plane willing to weave your Deed into the Dance of the Universe at Sacred Time. But that's another matter.) My own, incomplete, HeroQuest notes assume that Will comprises: Your original rolled POW Plus: Bonuses for the skills you have Mastered. And the contributed Will of the followers who support you on your Quest. I understand why some people feel unhappy about the idea of quantifying Will but to make a usable game-system I think some quantification is needed. (And *don't* talk to me about diceless gaming, for I am an unregenerate reactionary on that subject.) - -- Mike Cule ------------------------------ From: apardon@vub.ac.be (Antoon Pardon) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 14:11:11 +0100 (MET) Subject: RQR: Non-linear HP With all arguments for logarithmic charisticscales and MP points being exponential dependend on POW woudn't it then make sense to do the same with hitpoints? - -- ======================================================================== Antoon Pardon Brussels Free University Computing Centre 02/650.37.16 ======================================================================== ------------------------------ From: alex@dcs.gla.ac.uk Date: Thu, 16 Feb 95 13:31:08 GMT Subject: Re: RQR: Runepower pool and DI > Why not have the cost of DI taken out of your Runepower pool. The heavy cost > od your DI is still paid in X points of POW, without permenantly debilitating > the character. I suggested something on these lines, but not quite so drastic. Doing it exactly as above would have the effect that the majority of initiates would have _no_ chance of DI. Owch. My thought was to figure DI chance (and points lost) from POW, RPP, religious virtues, and (negatively) the "size" of the required DI. This last (hopefully) allows RQ:AiG-style limited DI (reproducing one of the religion's spells) without eliminating the possibility of producing more general effect. I had some outline ideas for implementing this, but I never worked out anything that was satisfactorily elegant and manageable. Alex. ------------------------------ From: joe@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 10:39:20 MEZ Subject: RQR: My ideas for reduced stats etc Steve Perrin replied to my brainstorming > Some very interesting ideas, both in what's copied above and the rest of the > missive. > But are you suggesting the above in lieu of hit points? Or as a general > rules construct that would abolish Magic Points? Or what? Well, you brought up hit point-less combat resolution, and I tried to spin those thoughts a little further. But I'd like to see some temporary stat loss due to severe conditions, rather than the IMO too harsh permanent stat loss the rules imply now. Take the diseases, for example. I know that when I fall ill, my effective STR (and DEX and CON, too) drops to half its normal value, but most of that loss quickly returns afterwards, and only the hard-won fitness from sports needs to be retrained. (The list in Lords of Terror has repaired that, somewhat.) Bothersome injuries which reduce the use of a hand or leg are quite common in my experience, too, and I miss a similar effect in the RQ rules which else please me as quite realistic. Maybe as a rule of thumb such effects can appear if a location is taken below zero HP (getting two ticks, or whatever), or on a fumble result. As for POW, right now it doubles for Will and Luck. A fumble in a greater magic might well reduce the ability to generate Life Force for spells for a while. But no, this was not intended as everyday magic point replacement. It might be used for extreme magics, giving the magician a chance to perform feats normally beyond his ken, but making him suffer afterwards. Like sprinters can operate with an oxygene-debt in their muscles, powerful magicians might overstress their life force. Thus heroic efforts could temporarily "raise" a stat, only to have it lowered for quite some time afterwards. Nothing for the core rules, maybe, but encouraging the heroic style RQ seems to advocate. I'm not sure I have grasped the full implications of point-free rules. Could the advocates provide a few more details? This might make a nice section for optional gaming style even within the rules if, as I expect, the points are retained. - -- - -- Joerg Baumgartner joe@sartar.toppoint.de ------------------------------ From: joe@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 11:24:52 MEZ Subject: RQR: Re: Sorry, Ray Steve Perrin: > [...] the more I think about > it, the less I like My Distinguished Co-Author's idea about using spirits in > spirit magic; and I didn't like it much to start with. Well, I like the concept (apparently inspired by Paul Reilly's helper spirit approach) a lot for _spirit magic_, but I agree that it seems very wrong for everyday personal magic like that granted by civilised (Lunar, Yelmite) or semi-civilised (Orlanthi) cults. In shamanic cultures, this is what I'd expect, though - I'd adopt this approach for Hsunchen magic, and spirit cults. (Ancestor worship might use the other approach instead.) > Battle/Spirit magic is supposed to be people's magic: the sort of thing > anyone can do with just a little study. To my mind, having to deal with > spirits adds too much complexity to the situation for the cobbler who just > wants to use a Glue spell to hold something together until he sews it up. > Then again, perhaps Battle Magic should just be a separate entity entirely, > a kind of people's sorcery that is based on magic skill and lots of extra > time, as I suggested in an earlier post. > That's just what we need, another magic system... Yes, a simple magic which doesn't require much insight, and which isn't helped by greater insight either. I.e. it may have a casting skill, maybe Focussing, but that skill will only determine the chance of success. As a simple magic, the base skill for this magic ought to be high. (Magic to affect resisting targets may be more difficult, but we can use the existing resistance rules to limit that, in addition to emphasizing the role of a focus.) The skill can be hard to increase (since insight doesn't help much). Very similar to the suggestions for "Dodge/Maneuver" made recently. I did criticize the purely shamanic representation of spirit magic in RQ3 before, and I think that this was one of the things which most alienated RQ2 players - they were used to go to their cult and buy the spells, not to wrestle with some kind of spirit. My suggestion for this subject is to allow both approaches, and let them have similar (the same?) effects moderated by the application. For "Sticks and Shamanism" style of games, personalized spirits make more sense, for "Sables and Spellcasting" ("Swords and Sorcery" sounds too Malkioni) a system of magical formulas seems better. The existing RQ3 not-fish-not-meat approach of spirit magic might work for the intermediary state like Praxians or uncivilised Orlanthi (Skanthi, Brolia, but certainly not Sartarites or Holy Country citizens). Yes, this leads to a proliferation of magic systems, or at least co-existing system variants. So what? That makes magic a more personal affair. As long as the game effects are clearly defined, a GM can handle this. A proposal that the newby GM ought to start with only one of the variants and introduce the others slowly would help, along with a description of the type of culture that uses these approaches, and suggestions how outsiders in other societies (the classical witches, frex) can provide foreign-style magic. Sounds too generic? AiG can comment on that with Glorantha examples. Like the spirit-helper style hag in Rokari or Pelorian backwoods, the arcane formula-using enchanter among Balazaring primitive hunters, to give two examples for outsiders (which also make scenario suggestions, like the recently popular NPCs with scenario hooks - the AiG supplement should have several of these, from all major cultures and regions!), or the spirit-friend sending Rathori hunter and the formula-chanting Nochet crafter, to give typical specimen. - -- - -- Joerg Baumgartner joe@sartar.toppoint.de ------------------------------ End of RQ Rules Digest: V1 #96 ****************************** 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.