From: owner-rq-rules-digest To: rq-rules-digest@hops.wharton.upenn.edu Subject: RQ Rules Digest: V1 #104 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 104 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 Loren Miller A few questions... Kirsten Jacobus Non-linear HP vs. non-linear magic points Jonas Schiott Who's Buying? ANDOVER@delphi.com RQ Audience Kirsten Jacobus "bad suggestions" Kirsten Jacobus RQ's audience Loren Miller RQ Audience Steven E Barnes DI credit Staffan Tjernstrom DI double entry bookkeeping Joerg Baumgartner The strengths of "generic" RQ3 David Dunham via RadioMail Presentation; Turing Test Hugh Foster RQ Buying Hugh Foster RQ for Thickies ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Loren Miller Date: Mon, 20 Feb 1995 12:30:52 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: A few questions... "Mauricio L. Rivera" writes: > Hello everyone! Hello Mauricio, glad to see we're reaching the Phillipines. > 1. I have the Glorantha (Genertela...etc.), Gods of Glorantha and Ninja > supplements plus the basic RuneQuest manuals. I am aware of Vikings and > Griffin Island--are there any new supplements out now (i've been out of > the scene since 1992), or a new version of RQ, for that matter? If so, > where can one get them? Can they be ordered thru mail-order (like Avalon > Hill, perhaps)? Absolutely. If you email to AHRPG@aol.com requesting a list of in-print RQ items they should be able to send something back to you. > 2. Have any of you formulated a system for hex-based tactical combat with > facing rules Just use the RQ3 rules with 1-meter hexes and you're ready to go. I don't think you need to add any rules to RQ3 to handle it. If you want a modern game with the same rules from Melee get a copy of GURPS. It's written by Steve Jackson, just like Melee was. - -- +++++++++++++++++++++++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: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu (Kirsten Jacobus) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 95 12:57:10 -0500 Subject: Non-linear HP vs. non-linear magic points The thing about making Hit Points non-"linear" (actually non-first-order polynomial) is that you would then have to completely redesign the damage for all RQ weapons. Right now, the weapons have a rough correspondance to an exponential relationship to angular momentum. Thus, they and hit points "go up" at the same rate. If you alter hit points, you would have to rewrite all weapons so that they have a more linear correspondance in damage to momentum. ------------------------------ From: jonas.schiott@vinga.hum.gu.se (Jonas Schiott) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 1995 19:23:10 +0000 Subject: Re: Who's Buying? Guy Robinson suggested: >I think that a valuable market for RQ4 would be those gamers who are >seeking a rite of passage from the low-brow games [...] Which set off an old thought that's been lingering in the back of my mind. Has anyone else noticed that everything published for RQ since, well 1990 or so, has been filled to the brim with chaos, chaos, slime, blood, guts, ooze and chaos? Slight exaggeration here, but it seems to me that a newcomer would get the impression that Glorantha is all about Storm Bullying through hordes of screaming chaos mutants.... Doesn't this seem a little (dare I say it) Warhammerish? So maybe RQ is already on the right track, if the audience Guy mentions is the desired one? ((( Jonas Schiott ))) ((( Ide- och lardomshistoria ))) ((( Goteborg ))) ------------------------------ From: ANDOVER@delphi.com Date: Mon, 20 Feb 1995 13:26:37 -0500 (EST) Subject: RQ Audience In response to Loren's point 2: 2. Lose the neophobe attitude. If RQ has to double its sales to live then what's the point in just letting it die and making up a replacement game? Wouldn't you rather have a surviving RQ that did what it had to in order to draw in a younger audience (not Jr High young, but younger than 30) than a dead RQ? How many people out there play the Fantasy Trip? How many play Chivalry and Sorcery? Dead games do *not* have players for very good reasons, and I do not want to see RQ in that boat. If you read what I wrote, Loren, you will see that I agree that RQ must increase its sales in order to survive. My point was that it is easier to do that when you start with the audience you have, and then figure out how to add to it, than it is to give up what you have (even if it is not enough) and start de novo. So far from being a neophobe, I probably was directly or indirectly responsible for bringing more young people to the last two RQ Cons than anyone else! And why should we be prejudiced against Jr. High School kids? My argument was rather the opposite: that many people on the line seem to want to talk down to the young. That attitude really goes nowhere! Jim Chapin ------------------------------ From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu (Kirsten Jacobus) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 95 13:28:50 -0500 Subject: "bad suggestions" Listen, folks, this looks to me like a "toss it out and see what floats" type of situation. OF COURSE all kinds of weird stuff is going to be suggested. Then things get pruned down due to various criteria later. Never suppress dumb suggestions, just point out how they won't work AFTER they have been made. ------------------------------ From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu (Kirsten Jacobus) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 95 13:35:57 -0500 Subject: RQ's audience From my experience, the following holds true for new RQ players (and I've introduced no less than a dozen people to the game): 1: They are dissatisfied with AD&D. 2: They are not new roleplayers. 3: They are looking for something that feels more "real" without a boatload of extra numbers. Things I have found that keep new people in RQ: 1: Simplicity. Like a new guy who was trying to recruit AD&D players said in front of me: "RuneQuest is easier than D&D. It's all a percentile roll. You don't have to remember a bunch of special rules." 2: Seriousness. People really LIKE the idea that RQ games are NOT just about running around and getting rich--you've got a real CAUSE for your character to get involved in. ------------------------------ From: "Loren Miller" Date: Mon, 20 Feb 1995 14:01:24 EST Subject: Re: RQ Audience Phil wrote: >My point was that it is easier to do that when you start with the >audience you have, and then figure out how to add to it, than it is >to give up what you have (even if it is not enough) and start de >novo. I do not agree. I think it is easier to come up with the best game you can, and then decide how to target it at a huge audience, than it is to keep your audience for a game and try to add another group of the same size. In other words it's easier to aim at huge than slightly big. I'm not saying that we should lose all hope for a mature RQ, but I don't think that approaching it in the same base-protecting manner that a politician would is a good thing. - -- +++++++++++++++++++++++23 Loren Miller LOREN@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Life at the water's edge is the real life for men and women ------------------------------ From: akuma@netcom.com (Steven E Barnes) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 1995 12:28:41 -0800 Subject: Re: DI credit From: Loren Miller > >I'd elaborate on Steve Barnes' version of Presence, changing the >terms somewhat to get rid of that ugly WILL stat. Well, you may not like the name WILL, but "alternate POW" is even worse. Lets face it, you're going to have to add a new stat name. Perhaps Presence? >Every magic-using person has two or more POWs, a mundane POW and one >or more alternate POWs. The mundane POW exists on the mundane plane. >Each alternate POW exists in an alternate reality, which may be the >spirit world, the god-world, solace, agartha, atlantis, the eastern >paradise, dreamtime, storyland, hundred acre wood, ryhope wood, the >happy hunting ground, or what have you. Initiation into a magical The Godlearner in me has to point out that these are really the same reality, just interpreted from different world-views. >When trying to get the attention and aid of an entity that lives at the >other end of a link I think the probablity of getting the answer you >request should be related to your alternate POW in that reality and >to the amount of mundane POW that you have available to be sucked >out of you. I hope this isn't too abstract to understand. I am thinking along similar ideas. I am unsure whether the amount of divine magic available to you (Runepower) is equal to your "alternate POW for that reality". >Maybe an example would make it a little more concrete. Let's go back >to the oldest example of all. Ugly Grok, an Orlanth initiate falls >into a well. Realizing he is rapidly approaching his demise, Grok >makes a quick plea to Orlanth to save him. Grok has sacrificed 1 POW >to Orlanth for the link to Orlanth's meadhall (alternate reality) >and his mundane POW is 12. Grok also sacrificed 2 POW to join his >ancestor worship cult, but that doesn't help him in this situation, >for Orlanth is not an ancestor. Add the two appropriate POWs >together. Roll a d100 and if it's a 1 (below his alternate POW) then >Orlanth does the favor for no POW cost at all. If it's between 2 and Are you saying that if I have an alternate POW of 20, I get free DIs on a roll of 1-20? I am thinking that your DI chance is 10% times the POW in your link to the god. The initiate typically has only 1 point, so gets a 10% chance. The rune lord has 10 points, so has 100%. Still working on how much POW it costs... >13 then Grok loses Mundane POW equal to the roll minus 1. Of the >mundane POW sacrificed Grok loses half to his god permanently >(inevitable POW loss for a hasty and inefficient transaction), and >the other half is added to his alternate POW in Orlanth's meadhall. >If he rolled a 7 he would go from 12 POW to 6 POW, and his alternate >POW would go from 1 to 4. This is an interesting idea - -steve ------------------------------ From: Staffan Tjernstrom <100303.141@compuserve.com> Date: 20 Feb 95 16:40:57 EST Subject: DI double entry bookkeeping Loren: <> This system I like a lot! Should be possible to build into our hybrid HQ system with a few modifications (I need to worry about shamans a lot). Thanx Loren. ------------------------------ From: joe@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 1995 12:38:12 MEZ Subject: The strengths of "generic" RQ3 Steve Barnes: > Somewhat belatedly, I'll explain some of what I thought 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. Not quite. I came into playing RQ because of the extremely good Vikings box (and good reviews by old-time players - we have to swamp the magazines available with laudatios about RQ's strengths about the time RQ4 is going to hit the market; "bland generic" by one who cares isn't going to help), and the invaluable section about "The World" in the Gamemasters Book. RQ3 gave the creative GM almost everything he needed to build up his own realm of fantasy - masters for deities to fill out with mythos and life (Ernalda was given as example how to enhance the bland Earth Mother, for those who bought the DeLuxe rules), information on workable cultures and their make-up (instead of the flavourless "every town its thieves guild" approach of TSR), insights in the cultures behind the magic systems (different magic for different cultures - previously unheard of; except in the _good_ fantasy literature), etc. I did not know too much about Glorantha, and I built my own world anyway to accommodate those scenario hooks and backgrounds I felt most familiar with. Ok, by now I have become a Gloranthoid of the worst calibre, but that was caused by a year of finals followed by a year of working abroad without any players available - I wanted to do fantasy, and so I found my way into the complexities of Glorantha while further developing my own universe. One reason why I now use Glorantha is the availability of outside opinions on my campaign ideas and background. Glorantha is the common ground of a clique of fanatics who are willing to share their ideas. As a GM, I can ask questions on the Digest, give out my ideas to the scrutiny of others, and benefit from their options. Sometimes I believe that Adventures in Glorantha ought to be published on Compact Disk accompanying a modem card and a discount access to some email provider... > 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. IMO advertising the tools to build the game world yourself, with frex the standard campaign used for both Vikings and Land of Ninja (large family vs small family, outside events as incursions) as a basic setting (and advice how to combine it with new settings) would be generic in the sense of generating (i.e. positive). In addition, offer the Vikings background, and expand it to allow raiding or settlement in Old England or the Frankish lands. Offer the rich Gloranthan background - I fear too rich for the newcomer; it takes time to get used to Glorantha, and if the GM has no previous experience with it from other game rounds, even Sun County or River of Cradles may be too complex for beginners. - -- - -- Joerg Baumgartner joe@sartar.toppoint.de ------------------------------ From: David Dunham (via RadioMail) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 1995 14:46:57 -0800 Subject: Re: Presentation; Turing Test Trent Smith says >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). Very good point. I hope any new version would look more like Elric (with the majority of the combat rules in a special section). Jim Chapin makes a similar point: >The key is presentation, psychology, mood. Also true. Most of this isn't well suited for discussion in the Rules Digest, however. Guy Robinson says >My take would be that the gods are not as anthropromorphic as their >worshippers might think. ... I would prefer my >gods to pass the Turing test Which is it? Do they pass the Turing Test (and are thus indistinguishable from humans) or are they non-anthropomorphic? Actually, I think Gloranthan-style gods would _not_ pass the Turing Test; by questioning them, you'd be able to tell they don't think like humans. Loren Miller presents (if I understand them) some reasonable rules for counting sacrificed POW for divine intervention. But somehow, this seems needlessly complex (perhaps because of the new term "alternate POW"). Maybe you should rewrite this in terms of a Gloranthan initiate instead of trying to be so abstract. Or just use the term "sacrificed POW" instead. ------------------------------ From: Hugh Foster <100326.446@compuserve.com> Date: 20 Feb 95 20:17:12 EST Subject: RQ Buying >> The hard truth is that not that many people want to design their campaigns from nothing. << Is it ? Everyone I know designs their own campaign; I can't think of anyone running in a bought-pack world, in _any_ game system. Votes, any one ? How many RQ3 write-it-yourselfers are there out there ? ------------------------------ From: Hugh Foster <100326.446@compuserve.com> Date: 20 Feb 95 20:17:18 EST Subject: RQ for Thickies >> 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. << The system you describe already exists, and it's called Warhammer (among other things). This abortion was responsible for the reduction of Games Workshop from a nation (UK) wide chain of quality shops carrying a broad spread of popular games to a few tiny ones in very seedy areas selling nothing but Warhamster to children, who have their RPG imagination forever stunted by the experience. GW used to be staffed by enthusiasts; you could drop in for a chat, buy a few bits and browse whatever your tastes. They even sold jigsaws! Now, I suspect the MTG fad will destroy them completely, as the munchkins desert Warhamster for something requiring even less imagination. Sorry but no. If you produce "RQ for Thickies" then I won't buy it, any more than I buy WH. This high sales crap is what's made TSR what it is today - unpopular! ------------------------------ End of RQ Rules Digest: V1 #104 ******************************* 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.