From: owner-rq-rules-digest To: rq-rules-digest@hops.wharton.upenn.edu Subject: RQ Rules Digest: V1 #102 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, 20 February 1995 Volume 01 : Number 102 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 Steven E Barnes [none] Mustafa Unlu Do you have enough DI credit? Scotty2405@aol.com Who's Buying? Brent Michael Krupp Who's Buying? ANDOVER@delphi.com RQ audience Trent Smith Who's Buying? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: akuma@netcom.com (Steven E Barnes) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 1995 11:31:43 -0800 Subject: [none] David Dunham (via RadioMail) >GAWINTER@aol.com said >>sorcery-- everyone hates that >I never thought RQ3 sorcery was broken. I do like some of the proposed >changes (dropping Free INT would be OK), but I ran a RQ3 sorcerer for a >while and didn't have any real problems. Dropping Free INT is more than OK, it is essential. Free INT just doesn't make sense. >>we the list participants are really >>not the most significant audiance for RQ4 ... >>The real audiance for RQ4 might be >>the unconverted masses of AD&Ders who yearn to play a meatier game. Perhaps >>the RQ4 rules should be written specifically with them in mind. > >Hear, hear! Somewhat belatedly, I'll explain some of what I though went wrong with RQ3. People have already commented on the broken rules, and the lack of new product support from AH. Another factor was that RQ3 proported to be a general purpose fantasy game. In fact, it was RQ2, with all the Gloranthan bits ripped out. It was bland, and puzzling to the D&D style gamer. RQ2 was tightly coupled to Glorantha; RQ3 didn't have the diversity of rules to be a true generic system (ala Hero), and didn't offer anything to replace the missing Glorantha. This is why I am dismayed about the decision to remove Glorantha from RQ4. I think RQ4 is doomed from the start, unless something is done to replace the missing game world. Oh yeah, RQ3 was way too expensive, and lacking in the flashy graphics needed in todays market. >Steve Barnes wondered >>I'm using Pendragon virtues in my RQ game, but I am a bit vague about >>what they are going to be used for. I have a dim idea that they will >>be rolled when the PCs attempt to become Rune level... > >The obvious use is trait tests (can the Orlanthi control his pride? can the >Yelmalion negotiate with the trolls despite his Hate Trolls passion?). In >PenDragon Pass, I require virtue rolls rather than POW*n to become initiate >or rune level. Yes, but I don't want to replace roleplaying with dice rolls... - -steve ------------------------------ From: Mustafa Unlu Date: Sat, 18 Feb 1995 14:37:52 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Do you have enough DI credit? Staffan Tjernstrom <100303.141@compuserve.com> writes: > ****Aroka Flame Follows**** > Total disagreement and howls of torment. > Taking the Gloranthan view (apologies to non-G readers) gods > _cannot_ interfere on the Mundane Plane. They have _no_ option who > they listen to. In order to break through to Godtime a _lot_ of > personal power is required (the DI sacrifice). How easy this is to > make _does_ depend on your standing with your god (ie if you're a RP > with 10 pts DI, it's pretty easy, however, you have probably just > performed several HQs to strengthen your god). An ordinary initiate > just has to rely on his own personal strength of conviction/luck (POW > again). > > Staffan 'Oh no, I'm @ 4 POW again, but at least I'm alive' Tj Umm. Glorantha? Godtime? HQ? I thought this was the Rune Quest rules list. Anyhow, I was (I hope that I made it clear in my original post) posting a house rule correction to the divine intervention rules as they are given in the rulebook. Note that those rules do not mention how hard it is to get to Godtime. Those rules should apply to all settings. And, given that, making DI dependent on POW is IMO broken. The Gloranthan POV may be fine with this, but my initiate who just sacrificed several points of POW to her goddess and also got attacked by a POW reducing disease was dismayed when she found out that her chances of getting any help from her goddess had been cut by half even though she slew the evil god's servants and saved her temple. See my point? M. ------------------------------ From: Scotty2405@aol.com Date: Sun, 19 Feb 1995 00:57:01 -0500 Subject: Who's Buying? Somebody recently noted that the best audience for RQIV is uncoverted D&Ders (or better yet, Magic the Gathering junkies). I have argued to various people that the new rules should be written at about a 9th grade reading level and an Interest Level of grades 7+. Likewise, my arguments ran towards buff males and scantily clad females for cover art. These arguments were met with horror by most RQ players. The various writers told me, in various ways, that they hated the idea. But in fact, RQ is a dying game. It's dying because the bulk of its market is aging rapidly, and it's too damn complex for kids to pick up. Glorantha? Sure, a savant/gifted teen may see the interesting parts, the rest are running out and buying the new Dragons of Krynn novel or more MtG cards. Aim low for high sales. Low age, low brow, low price. If enough of us tell AH this message, they may actually believe it. If all they hear is that there are a million Grad Students (or their equivalents) all waiting in line to buy a game that only they can enjoy, AH'll believe it till they lose their shirts, and then they'll kill it with a big rock. Joe Scott ------------------------------ From: Brent Michael Krupp Date: Sat, 18 Feb 1995 23:20:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: Who's Buying? On Sun, 19 Feb 1995 Scotty2405@aol.com wrote: > arguments ran towards buff males and scantily clad females for cover art. > > Joe Scott I don't know about the rest of Joe's post, but am I the only person who thinks that all the stupid sexist art on RPGs is why few people (i.e. non-gamers) take them seriously (or consider them a "valid" hobby) and why few women seem to play them? I guess it would be good for RQ to sell, but I'd rather see it die than help to continue the pathetic trend of bad and pointlessly sexist fantasy art that's out there. Brent Krupp (fletcher@u.washington.edu) "A man's mother is his misfortune, but his wife is his fault." -- Walter Bagehot ------------------------------ From: ANDOVER@delphi.com Date: Sun, 19 Feb 1995 02:28:00 -0500 (EST) Subject: RQ audience We keep getting these messages telling us that the present audience of RQ is not enough for the game to survive. Thta is trite and obvious. The conclusion that usually seems to follow is that THEREFORE we should create an entirely new game with an entirely new audience. A fine idea! But then why call it Runequest? If we don't want the present RQ people why pretend that what we have is a game called Runequest if it is unconnected to the present game. What audience will THAT attract? In fact, of course, selling a game on the basis that we screwed the original audience for the game, join us, would not be a real good proposition. And in fact, the way to expand on an audience is to keep your core audience happy. As a political consultant, I can't tell you how many politicians get in trouble because they demonstrate that they are not interested in their original supporters and care only about swing voters. (a few obvious politicians come to mind!) The trick is to keep your original base and expand beyond it at the same time. In fact, most of the rules changes that would ruin backwards compatibility are not of the sort that would bring more people into the game: they are just "bright ideas" that people want to try out. If I understand the economics of the game at present, its audience istoo small to survive by about 50%. Exactly what rules changes would DOUBLE the audience? Not too many, I expect. The key is presentation, psychology, mood. The new version of RQ is going to remain an "elite" game, it is not going to pass D & D. What we need to do is to get a larger elite. If just sales are our goal, lets not use the name Runequest. Given the popularity of "Dumb" movies at the moment, I think a new game called "Goonquest" would do quite well! And at least some of the suggested rules would fit quite well into such a game! Jim Chapin ------------------------------ From: Trent Smith Date: Sat, 18 Feb 1995 23:48:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: Who's Buying? Excuse me if I de-lurk momentarily, but as a from-what-I've-read uncharacteristically young RQ player (currently a sophomore in college, started RQ in 8th-9th grade), Joe Scott's comments about how to change the target audience of RQ struck me as both cynical and disgusting. My only hope is either that Mr Scott was being sarcastic in his post or that everyone disregard his ideas as complete rubbish, because that's what they are. When I bought the RQ Deluxe Edition in 1988, I did not do so because I thought the woman on the cover was hot. I did it because I was bored with D&D (I'd previously turned to WFRP) and I'd heard great things about it (mostly about Glorantha, actually) from other (older) gamers and magazine articles. Admittedly, at the time I was overwhelmed by the volume of rules, but I was familiar enough with "Stormbringer" and "Call of Cthulhu" that I was able to get a general idea of the system. Since then I've been GMing off-and-on RQ/Glorantha campaigns with a group of gamers who are almost all my age and I've accumulated almost all of the RQ3 supplements (I never bought "Eldorad" or a couple of others) and a goodly portion of the old RQ1/RQ2 books. I do think that if RQ is to survive that the target audience should be younger, but I think 7th grade is too young and I think there are both more tasteful and (I would hope) more effective means of doing so. RQ's current strength (at least among me and my friends) is the level of sophistication it has, which is hundreds of times greater than D&D and more than just about any other game I've played (which is a lot). I sincerely believe that it can, and should, be preserved at the same time as making the game more accessible. In addition to effective advertising and other such ways to better-publicize RQ, a big part of making the game more accessible would be to clearly differentiate the absolute fundamental rules and those "extra bits" that add texture and realism. As the rulebook is structured now, Knockback and Fatigue are made to look just as central to the game system as Parrying and the Resistance Table. Only after a person's played the game a few times will he realize what's actually necessary and what can be disregarded or only used as "optional" 9at least that's how it was with me). I sincerely love both RQ and Glorantha, and many of my friends who I game with feel the same way (although to a lesser extent, since most of what they get's filtered through me). I'd hate to see it prostituted to the Jr High crowd in such a cynical way and, if something like that were to happen, I feel that I've (finally) got enough RQ and Glorantha resources to keep my mind active fo a long time to come. Sorry if that was a bit "rant"y, but it's my first post and I had several things to get off my chest. Trent Smith (I'm starting to wonder if this is how all the old RQ2-ers felt when they found out RQ3 was going to be generic and not Glorantha-based) ------------------------------ End of RQ Rules Digest: V1 #102 ******************************* 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.