From: owner-rq-rules-digest To: rq-rules-digest@hops.wharton.upenn.edu Subject: RQ Rules Digest: V1 #107 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, 22 February 1995 Volume 01 : Number 107 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 Charlie Domino Going Down Holes and Fighting Chaos Charlie Domino More GM demographics David Cake Going Down Holes and Fighting Chaos ANDOVER@delphi.com GDHaFC Hugh Foster RQ for thickies R. Andrew Bean RQ3 cover art Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox. The Divination Spell Turing Test Mike Cule Glorantha GURPS Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox. RQ Cover Art Jonas Schiott Warspeare goes Chaotic... SPerrin@aol.com Blow Away Befuddle ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charlie Domino Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1995 00:49:19 -0600 (CST) Subject: Going Down Holes and Fighting Chaos One of the problems AH faces is that with so few RQ supplements to be published, each one has to be as useable as possible. If a scenario is written along the lines of, say Biturian Varosh the Issaries Trader getting sucked into a Yelmalian ceremony and fighting for his life (story from CoP) then it isn't much use to campaigns based around Yanafal Tarnils without some changes. But even some Lunars agree that bad chaos has to be kept in check, so any campaign, regardless of the player's cults, can grab and run with a GDHAFC scenario. In short, GDHAFC fits campaigns easier. Charlie ===================================================================== "What are we going to do tonight, Brain?" "The same thing we do every night, Pinky. Try and take over the world" =========================cdomino@icsi.net=========================== ------------------------------ From: Charlie Domino Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1995 01:04:16 -0600 (CST) Subject: More GM demographics Well, I kind of wandered in the last note, but I want to add that of my fellow GM's, I know of a few that have scratch-built entire systems, and some have built worlds, but most have preferred printed world, albeit they usually tweak them. Harn, Forgotten Realms, Middle Earth, and Greyhawk have been the most popular. At a guess, I'd say the ratio was about 3:1 in favor of pre-printed worlds. Note that the demographic we are talking about expanding to (I presume 17-25) is not going to be heavily experienced in making up their own worlds. For that, the RQ 3 rules were only a basic primer on the level of "See Jack run. See Jill run." EITHER Glorantha OR Fantasy Europe will work, attached to a "Base RQ". But only if enough high quality supplements come out to keep the new GM's buying, and bring more along. I can't tell AH their business (well, they wouldn't listen if I did) but a two-pronged strategy of printing one major supplement (a regional or culture pack) per quarter, plus 1-2 minor supplements (scenarios) each month would have kept RQ3 alive despite it's problems. And would do well for RQ4. ===================================================================== "What are we going to do tonight, Brain?" "The same thing we do every night, Pinky. Try and take over the world" =========================cdomino@icsi.net=========================== ------------------------------ From: davidc@cs.uwa.edu.au (David Cake) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1995 15:32:10 +0800 Subject: Re: Going Down Holes and Fighting Chaos > But even some Lunars agree that bad chaos has >to be kept in check, so any campaign, regardless of the player's cults, >can grab and run with a GDHAFC scenario. In short, GDHAFC fits campaigns >easier. That still doesn't explain the holes in the ground! You can fight chaos on the surface as well! But seriously, chaos is not only a bit overused, but usually used far too insubtly. The number of scenarios where you encounter chaos lurking in a hole waiting for PCs to eat is much higher than the number where chaos works a bit subtler. I would like to see more non-chaotic opponents. Mostali or uz could both work fine. Lots of cults that PCs might even be members of can be used as enemies (eg Orlanthi or Praxians are not averse to a bit of intertribal raiding, and you can be a good Orlanthi or Waha initiate, and still a complete bastard). But I don't think RQ really has a big problem on this score. A D&D even works going down into holes in the ground into its name (and T&T for that matter). In fact, the number of GDHAFC scenarios is probably due to the fact that Glorantha is constructed so that most inhabitants are not just bad guys waiting to be beaten up, in contrast to the many games with huge hordes of inhabitants clearly labelled evil. So people use chaos. Cheers Dave >Charlie > >===================================================================== > "What are we going to do tonight, Brain?" "The same thing we do >every night, Pinky. Try and take over the world" >=========================cdomino@icsi.net=========================== ------------------------------ From: ANDOVER@delphi.com Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1995 03:08:26 -0500 (EST) Subject: GDHaFC This whole topic reminds me of one of the great problems of political liberalism: William James and "the moral equivalent of war." That is, something that will bring a society together as well as war does. The problem is that there is NO moral equivalent of war! By the same token, I'm not sure +that the problem is chaos in holes as lots of things in holes! Trolls in holes, as in the second pArt of Apple Lane and most of Trollpack; Godlearner constructs in floating holes, as in the Sea issue of TotRM, dragons in holes as in Heroes, Newtlings in Holes as in the Five Eye Temple, even Griffins in Holes in Griffin Mountain. The main thing about holes is that they give you a defined space to work in, which, by the way, suggests that many GMs are not inventing whole universes! Above ground campaigns usually have temples and houses serving as the places of combat. The Runequest LARPs and such things as the Galastar peace conference or At the Edge of the Dark seem to be trying to move things from straight combat. And the popularity of the Vampire series shows that reduced combat can be appealing. > On a connected note, I think the key to the next RQ cover is to make it Mysterious and Different, something that fires the imagination of our archetypical smart teenager. Violence and sex are not the key: interesting strangeness is. Jim Chapin ------------------------------ From: Hugh Foster <100326.446@compuserve.com> Date: 22 Feb 95 03:39:55 EST Subject: RQ for thickies >> I urge caution -- big changes in style, not big changes in substance, are what I recommend. << I think we basically agree. I am very in favour of better graphics, presentation and "hype". Of course, I bought GW RQ3 which had a lot of rather good GW art spliced in, so I can see the difference! ------------------------------ From: "R. Andrew Bean" Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1995 19:19:55 +1100 (EST) Subject: RQ3 cover art I was at a late night movie session at Cancon a few weeks ago and we ended up in a big discussion about female representation in Sci Fi and Fantasy genres. Of the several women there one commented she hated the women in chainmail bikini's of most RPG's so I pulled out my RQ rule book and River of Cradles and she and the rest of the women were really impressed by the "reasonable" depictions of women throughout. Also one book had various covers advertising other supplements and all thought they were good pictures. The only risque female image was a topless naiad and that was OK because "nymphs tend to do that sort of thing". I've always winced at other RPG's repesentation of skimpily clad women in combat and I think RQ is on the right track with the kind of covers it has had on all its supplements lately. Cheers, Andrew ------------------------------ From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1995 00:59:31 PST Subject: The Divination Spell Turing Test Note: The style of this mail-note probably reflects that I have a Philosophy exam to sit soon, taken for recreational and self-improvement reasons, for which I have to write essays for answers. David Dunham writes: >Guy Robinson says >>In other words given the nature of medium over which the Turing test >>would have to be conducted I think a RQ god would pass >Guy, I humbly submit you don't have any idea what you're talking about. The >Turing Test is performed over a teletype (or more modern equivalent). Being >able to write questions and receive written answers from the gods is a >given, otherwise you can't perform the test. And I humbly riposte that you are either unable to fathom the meaning of the phrase 'given the nature of the medium' or lack the imagination to extrapolate such a test to a fantasy environment. The divine magic spell Divination gives a medium that allows questons and answers. It is a different medium of communication to a teletype but it remains a form of communication without face to face interaction. So imagine, if you can, the teletype replaced by the Divination spell. >The Turing Test is about >whether we could tell from the answers that the entity on the other and of >the teletype is a human (the basic version is actually to distinguish men >from women, but the computer/human distinction is how it's usually taken >today, and I believe a god/human distinction is the obvious extrapolation >here). The entity passes if it can fool the questioner into thinking it's >human. Glad to see that you feel that some extrapolation of this test is possible. Now a teletype is more accessable medium to us today than the Divination spell. For a start virtually any person or computer could conceivably use a teletype or equivalent. But the Divination spell can only be used to question gods albeit one that may have started off as humans. And of course the Divination spell only exists in those vitual RQ worlds. However there can still be responses and replies but you have to consider the nature of the test. This is what I said the following: >And you yourself show how you could trip up the gods: >>The distinguishing difference between a god and man would be the trend >>toward timelessness For, by my suggestions, if a human becomes a god through apotheosis then he would adopt such traits as timelessness *but* as gods are the only thing that Divination will reach this is a factor that can not be eliminated. A divination spell turning test could conceivably test two or more things. One is that, given the factors that can not be removed, whether the gods are distinguishable from mortals. Another is whether a human that has become a god is distinguishable from a god from another source. For what I am trying to examine, untill I get some playtest results to type up, is the possible nature of the RQ gods and whether they have free will. If the gods pass a test that demonstrates that a computer has acheived a state where Artifical Intelligence has arguably been reached, or faked to such a degree that it does not matter, then other qualities associated with intelligence, such as free-will, may be deduced or inferred from these results. Cogito ergo sum. (sp? My Latin is restricted to a few stock phrases.) For if the gods appear to have free-will and intelligence then it can be argued that they do, for all practical purposes, possess these qualities. Of course it may be that a detailed test of these qualities reveal a different set of possible conclusions but this is the effect that I want to achieve in my campiagns. As Byran has stated, or at least for Glorantha, that there exists a test for a priest to recognise his own god. Actually on Glorantha there exist other beings that specifically as mysterious as the gods to humans, if not more so, like Dragon Newts. This has been interesting to expound as I took an AI component in my Computer Science degree and incidentally my protagonist about AI, who feels that intelligence requires a soul or some divine spark, is leaving the fold for another company. This is probably why I brought up the Turing Test as I use it as example when I debate with him that appearances alone are enought to judge whether something is intelligent. For we can only apply Descartes' 'I think therefore I am' test on ourselves and other beings we have to test via some kind of variations of the Turing Test or some other method. I realise that applying this test to gods via the Divination spell is a large intuitive leap but one that I think is still valid. Regards -- Guy Robinson -- ------------------------------ From: Mike Cule Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1995 11:41:40 GMT Subject: Glorantha GURPS Joe Scott mentioned on the RQ-Rules list, the possibility of people using the Gloranthan background with GURPS. Now this idea has fascinated me for a long time and I've heard rumours several times of people doing it. Does anyone have any tested ideas they'd consent to share with me? I realise that this is black heresy so don't post the replies to the list for the sake of everybodies' blood pressure. E-mail me directly. - -- Mike Cule ------------------------------ From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1995 05:24:08 PST Subject: Re: RQ Cover Art Steve Perrin wrote: >So, do people like the RQ3 cover art? Do they prefer the combat-oriented RQ2 >art to the exploration-oriented RQ3 art? Is anyone out there an RQ3 (only or >initially) player attracted by that cover? When I saw the RQ3 book I felt that the people featured exploring looked lost. It did not encourage me to buy the book, while an ancient city or a unique situation (my copy of Bunnies and Burrows was picked up due to the front cover of two armies of rabbits confronting each other) would have made me more interested. However the RQ2 cover was not much better and I would not carry it around openly in public as I feel the bikini, albeit be it composed of platemail rather than chain, is a tad sexist. I would instead suggest a negotiation between two parties as this gives the chance of demonstrating social differences, richness of background and that element of role-playing. I recommended for RQ:AiG an encounter between a party of humans and some trolls during the RQ4 playtest. The RQ4 playtest version went out with a picture of a dragon sleeping before a village which demonstrated the enormity of the beast before the mortal dwelling and how it was becoming a series of hills. This was an interesting cover. Regards -- Guy Robinson -- ------------------------------ From: jonas.schiott@vinga.hum.gu.se (Jonas Schiott) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1995 17:52:47 +0800 Subject: Warspeare goes Chaotic... Just felt the urge to clear up some misunderstandungs.... Hugh Foster: >So, if Shakespeare were selling badly, should we >intersperse the prose with the word "fuck" occasionally >just to attract a more "yoof" audience ? You're asking me? Well, I would say no. But then, Shakespeare did what amounts to the same thing all by himself, so it's too late now... Steven E Barnes: >The recent >release of Dorastor and Cults of Doom (or whatever it is called) >may give the impression of a sudden emphasis on chaos. I was also thinking of the scenarios in River of Cradles, Shadows on the Borderland and (surprisingly enough) Sun County.. >There has always been a big element of chaos slaying in RQ >products. Well, yes, but my point (one of my points) was that it's gotten grimmer, more graphic if you will, lately. This could simply be part of the hobby's evolution, I guess. Joe Scott: >Would it come as any surprise to you that the architect of the RQ >renaissance, Ken Rolston, is a former Games Workshop staffer and current >holder of Warhammer FRPG USA publication rights? Sort of a surprise. I always thought he just freelanced one scenario book for them. Something Rotten in Kislev - a rather good product, actually. In fact, Ken did a _lot_ of good work before he got started on RQ... ;-) David Cake: >Nah, the chaos has always been there. Of course, but I never got the impression in the old days that chaos was the _only_ thing to fight out (or is it down) there, or that there was any real hurry to do it. :-) Recent Gloranthan publications seem to imply a certain frantic urgency - "kill chaos _now_ or we are all doomed!" sort of thing.... Dunno if this has anything to do with the cthulhoid references in Lords of Terror? But perhaps this discussion is more appropriate for the other list. ((( Jonas Schiott ))) ((( Ide- och lardomshistoria ))) ((( Goteborg ))) ------------------------------ From: SPerrin@aol.com Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1995 14:00:11 -0500 Subject: Blow Away Befuddle Ray Turney and I were talking at DunDraCon about the possibility of perhaps turning what is currently (RQ3) "spirit magic" into two categories of "common magic" and "spirit magic." The former would be RQ2-sytle battle magic and would essentially be telekinesis type spells like Bladesharp and Protection. Spirit Magic would involve the "psychic" powers like Befuddle and Demoralize. Where Disruption would fit is an interesting question and goes back to an old argument. This division seems to be part of the current RQ4, but I'll have to reread my copy of the year-old version to make sure I remember it correctly (or wait for a flame on this list to correct me). Common Magic is available to anyone. Shamans use Spirit Magic. Warriors using Common Magic would not be as likely to have reduced POW/MP against Befuddle/Demoralize because they won't run up against it as often. Another thought Steve Perrin ------------------------------ End of RQ Rules Digest: V1 #107 ******************************* 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.