From: owner-rq-rules-digest To: rq-rules-digest@hops.wharton.upenn.edu Subject: RQ Rules Digest: V1 #115 Reply-To: rq-rules Errors-To: owner-rq-rules-digest Precedence: bulk Content-Return: Prohibited Return-Path: owner-rq-rules-digest RQ Rules Digest: Sunday, 26 February 1995 Volume 01 : Number 115 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 Kuri RQR:Beffudle as active spell Hugh Foster Bonuses Hugh Foster Will Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox. Differing Magic Systems Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox. RQR: Fantasy Earth Bruce Lionel Mason Banish piddly little differences! Bruce Lionel Mason character creation; piddling; Befuddle SPerrin@aol.com Nigel's comments Steven E Barnes Will, Traits, and Gods SPerrin@aol.com Fwd: Aha! SPerrin@aol.com Befuddle Saving Throw SPerrin@aol.com Advantage/disadvantage ch... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kuri Date: Sat, 25 Feb 1995 16:10:00 +0900 Subject: RQR:Beffudle as active spell Kuri here. I think Beffudle spell is as potent as Fireblade or Invisible. Beffudle spell should be ACTIVE spell. Saving throw is preferable. Comment? Regards. // Kuri (QFF00036@niftyserve.or.jp) // ------------------------------ From: Hugh Foster <100326.446@compuserve.com> Date: 25 Feb 95 06:05:16 EST Subject: Bonuses >>IMHO if a modifier used in actual play is less than 10% I don't even want to hear about it.<< Shows my style; my players are over the moon to get a +5% for anything. Am I too miserly ? No. . ------------------------------ From: Hugh Foster <100326.446@compuserve.com> Date: 25 Feb 95 06:05:23 EST Subject: Will >> Why not have WILL be the average of INT and POW << Hey yeah! In the abscene of any better, I've been using that for some years. Not only for its' cult bits, but simply as willpower. It's really useful if the _player_ desperately wants to try again & again to do something his _character_ doesn't necessarily know is a good idea. Roll WILL times x to stay stubborn. Works fine. ------------------------------ From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com Date: Sat, 25 Feb 1995 06:19:32 PST Subject: Re: Differing Magic Systems Received: by eccles.wgc.rx.xerox.com (4.1/SMI-4.0) id AA01477; Sat, 25 Feb 95 14:19:10 GMT Loren wrote in response to my posts: > That would be a terrible idea. Only a 50% chance that your slay rat > spell (aka disrupt) works against that rat?! Good point but the issue that Ray was raising was that Battle Magic appeared to be too potent and was eclipsing the role of Divine Magic if I interpreted Ray`s post correctly. I think this is evidence of a situation where if something is adjusted for combat, or duelling, then the social uses may suffer. >> A kind of pay in advance system for miracles that >> you to reconcile the use of after these powers have been exercised. >That's the traditional divine magic system. If RunePower is used >instead, then philosophically divine magic would be the process of >sacrificing Power to incrementally develop a divine self (an avatar or >incarnation) which can use powers and which is constrained by limits >similar to but less absolute than those of the incarnated god. I would be a bit suprised if everyone could carry about a divine self as potent as the RunePower system. I would be inclined to grant initiates access to the trad. divine magical system (with some form of recovery) and to use RunePower for the Rune Lords and Priests. For if each RunePower pool is limited by the Divine Magic known at the time of the Rune level character's investiture or whatever Divine Magic is donated by those sponsoring the investiture the backwards compatability would be maintained. For Rune level characters would still have a list of Divine Magic spells but this becomes the range of spells that they can be used rather than the specific instances of these spells that can be used on an spell by spell basis. However I could easily warm to a RunePower system, especially if the divine magic users had to compete with flexible, effective sorcerers. Guy Robinson ------------------------------ From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com Date: Sat, 25 Feb 1995 07:04:58 PST Subject: Re: RQR: Fantasy Earth Received: by eccles.wgc.rx.xerox.com (4.1/SMI-4.0) id AA01525; Sat, 25 Feb 95 15:04:34 GMT Guy Hoyle writes: >I think that one of my favorite things about RuneQuest when I first >bought it in 1979 was that it got away from the "generic medieval" >settings emphasized by the other big games of the day. Why not put out >an "ancient empires" setting for the Mediterranean area? You could have >Mycenaean Greece, ancient Egypt, the Hittites, the Phoenicians, proto- >Celts, Amazons, etc. AND you'd avoid the thorny problem of offending >modern-day Christians, Muslims, etc. This sounds like an excellent idea. For even though considering whether the god of Islam, Christianity and Judaism would grant Divine spells and whether such spells could be recovered from any of those 3 religions I think the whole area could be a minefield. The ancient world is a very rich source of material most of which has yet to be done to death by mainstream role-playing games. The wealth of the imagery from those periods is matched by the holes in our knowledge about that periods. Paradoxically such holes could offer the writers the lea-way they need to write something creative. Guy Robinson ------------------------------ From: Bruce Lionel Mason Date: Sat, 25 Feb 1995 12:41:03 -0330 Subject: Re: Banish piddly little differences! I've deleted the text to save on bandwidth but 3 cheers for Loren's Banish the Piddly little differences! About two years I ago I finally gave up on worrying whether a modifier should add +5 or -7 to a skill, after all the NPCs I had to run were either 25% 50% 75% or just didn't fail depending on my mood. In a fit of pique I decided that there were only 3 modifiers: name skill mod difficult/easy -20% +20% very difficult/no problem -50 +50 No chance/can't fail skill/10 skill*10 At first the players were kind of dubious, with the occasional cry of ``it's not that difficult, can't it just be -10%?'' but sticking to it ruthlessly actually worked quite well. Just my 2c worth. ---Bruce ------------------------------ From: Bruce Lionel Mason Date: Sat, 25 Feb 1995 13:02:45 -0330 Subject: Re: character creation; piddling; Befuddle On Sat, 25 Feb 1995, David Dunham wrote: > > We could drop the skill categories altogether and get rid of those > modifiers. (Then my easier-to-use alphabetic character sheet is the way to > go. :-) Or if people really think they're required, you could take your INT > of 13 and say that gives you 13 skills you can increase by 5% each from the > various categories which INT affects. Sounds like a good idea to me. Or to be precise, RQ3 skill modifiers (ditto for AiG) do not have enough of an effect on the game to make their effort worthwhile. I would say there are two ways to go: either drop modifiers altogther or make them more important. I happen to quite like Ars Magica's skill system where your skill normally equals trait+skill rating but that would be horrible to implement in RQ. The system I was trying before I left the UK and my gaming group behind was to use characteristics as base chances for skills. Eg an easy DEX skill (climb) had a base chance of DEX*3, a medium one DEX*2 (ride) and a hard one DEX*1 (dodge). It did have the problem of what happens if your characteristic changes after the skill has increased and I never came up with an answer that I liked. > > > Steve Barnes suggests > > >Like I said, use the RQ:AiG style cult restrictions. Limit Befuddle > >to Disorder/Illusion gods, and maybe give a different version of the > >spell to Harmony gods like Chalana Arroy. > > Which is not how AiG limits things -- you can learn spirit magic from > associated deities, and Chalana Arroy is associated with many. > It is how RQ3 limits things. I used to enforce the RQ3 temples idea quite rigorously, so that the end result was that the magic available tended to vary geographically due to historic and mythic patterns. Sure, an Orlanthi could be to a kolating and ask for befuddle but that would be a *big* deal and he would have to cast the spell kolating style (a lot of whooping, asking the wind spirits to swirl around and bemuse his opponent and waving painted chicken feet around.) I always figured there was a big difference between cult spirit magic and shamanic spirit magic and that the difference would be pretty obvious if you saw it getting cast. Anyhow, an Orlanthi learning befuddle from a Chalana Arroy is obviously a coward: that's woman magic after all and (don't say this too loudly) Lunars use it too. On a more general note, with the exception of all the piddly rules, I don't think there's anything that wrong with RQ3 that a good rewrite, ie give the reader a sense of what a befuddle looks like and give them an idea of how to use rules creatively rather than follow thems slavishly (no more of this the rules are the court of appeal crap) and a liberal dose of high production values wouldn't fix. - ---Bruce. ------------------------------ From: SPerrin@aol.com Date: Sat, 25 Feb 1995 15:05:52 -0500 Subject: Re: Nigel's comments Nigel asks: >Still on the subject, why was 'battle magic' increased from 10MR to 50MR in duration?< Because melees can exceed 10 MRs but rarely exceed 50MR. It's meant to be a benefit for the players and GM. Just a onetime cost and no need to spend more later in a fight. Looks like less bookkeeping, not more bookkeeping to me. Steve Perrin ------------------------------ From: akuma@netcom.com (Steven E Barnes) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 1995 13:34:51 -0800 Subject: Re: Will, Traits, and Gods Eric Jablow: >Let's look at what stats measure mental and spiritual ability. There's INT, >which measures mental ability, and the ability to learn magic. There's POW, >which measures spiritual strength, the ability to cast magic. Is either of >these WILL? No. The problem is the method of POW increase, and rules for POW sacrifice. Of course, you could reinterpret rune spells and claim that you are sacrificing your "free will" to get them. I think the reason Will was added for attempts at HQ rules was because warriors can become great heroes, with out the benefit of magic. In RQ, you need to go around casting POW vs POW spells in order to raise POW. >Over the last few years, we have seen various attempts to add Pendragon >Traits to RQ. There's a general concensus that we need to measure how well >a character fits into the mythic archetypes he or she tries to emulate, how >Brave and Generous an Orlanthi is, or how Death-like a Humakti is. On the >other hand, we often claim of the Gods that they do not, in fact, have free >will. So, the Humakti Sword/Hero/Runequester tries to imitate Humakt; does >it not seem reasonable that he's losing his Free Will as fast as he is >increasing his Traits? No. By that reasoning, the best heroquesters would be lay members and initiates; rune lords will have already used up too much will. >Consider that INT is hard to change, as is SIZ. POW can change, but slowly, >somewhat like CON. Why not have WILL be the average of INT and POW, just as >HP is the average of SIZ and CON. However, this should only be for starting >characters. Life experiences affect WILL unlike how they affect POW. I believe that POW, the measure of your magical ability, should be trained like the other stats. It should not be sacrificed for spells. This is why in my earlier posts, I renamed POW -> WILL. On a related note, INT should be trainable. Think about it... (I think the main reason INT was non-trainable in RQ was that it was too good already in RQ1-2; not only did it give you bonuses in most all skills, but also determined your learning bonus) >More interestingly should be the interaction of WILL and Traits. I'd >suggest that when in PenDragon Pass terms a character gets a Trait check to >raise a trait or Passion to 20 or above, he gets a WILL check to reduce his >WILL. The more stereotyped and predictible you are, the less free-willed >you are. I see traits just the reverse. The knight who has 16+ in all five of the "knightly traits" gets big bonuses, because he is so holy. It takes great willpower to be that good (by which I mean, you have to be a real stubborn SOB to act like that all the time, not that you sacrificed a lot of Will. The ideal knight is that way because he chooses to be that way, not because he has no choice) >As for Heroquesting, I'd just suggest that characters may use (and expend) >WILL in various places, or they may be forced to depend on their Traits. >Where could you use WILL in the mundane world? I suggest that a character >may use WILL to defend against torture, perhaps increasing WILL, or may use >Stoicism, possibly increasing that (and decreasing WILL). Or, it could be My friend, having played in various Chaosium HQ experiments, derided such schemes as "Will Tax". "You need to cross the Uncrossable Desert. Will Tax. Then you have to move the Unmoveable Rock. Will Tax." For the record, I disagree about heroes "sacrificing their will". I think that superheroes like Harrek and Jareel, despite having accomplished great HQs, could still jump onto the heroplane and pull off a quest, should the need arise. In "Will Tax" systems, they wouldn't have any Will left. I think heroes may become bound by fate, or entangled by obligations. In this sense, they lose "freedom", but not "willpower". Here's my take on why heroes "lose their will": Yanafal Ta'arnils has no free will. This is beacuse he is a "god" (translation: he is dead). When he was alive, he had Will, and accomplished great things. Now that he is dead, what remains are the myths and memories of what he accomplished. A god/myth has no will. - -steve ------------------------------ From: SPerrin@aol.com Date: Sat, 25 Feb 1995 17:16:44 -0500 Subject: Fwd: Aha! Thought everyone might like to see what Ken Rolston has to say about his "chaotic" adventures... - --------------------- Forwarded message: Subj: Re: Fwd: Aha! Date: 95-02-25 07:40:05 EST From: KenRolston To: S Perrin You tell those guys...! No way! Rolston always hated chaos spikey-spikey as a steady diet. See his immemorial work for Warhammer -- SOMETHING ROTTEN IN KISLEV -- with only a certain amount of chaos spikey. No. The chaos glut in recent publications is an artifact of the thought that Sandy's Dorastor stuff would be COOL. It was, sure enough -- but note that KEN ROLSTON's contribution to Dorastor -- Riskland campaign -- is only minor chaos and mostly culture and character. So there. Though chaos does end up the bad guy for monster RQ way too ofte, I ain't taking the fall... Love and kisses, The Orc-Lover ------------------------------ From: SPerrin@aol.com Date: Sat, 25 Feb 1995 17:16:48 -0500 Subject: Re: Befuddle Saving Throw Actually, after reading all the posts so far, I'm pretty much of the opinion that Befuddle is fine without a "saving throw" as long as it is understood that the target's lack of interest in the proceedings lasts only as long as he is not attacked. If attacked, the spell is broken and he can go back the way he normally operates. However, he will respond against the attacker as he comes out of the Befuddle, no matter who it is. This means that comrades of a Befuddled warrior might attack their friend for a round (risking a deadly counterattack) just to break him out of a Befuddle. It also means that one reserves the Befuddle for the sorcerer/priest/shaman at the back of the attackers, or the immense troll leading the attackers, in hopes that the former will not be noticed to be Befuddled and the latter will be so imposing that one can hope its comrades will not want to break it out of the Befuddle. This can mean that Rune Lords on the side of the PCs are also targets for Befuddle... Steve Perrin ------------------------------ From: SPerrin@aol.com Date: Sat, 25 Feb 1995 17:16:50 -0500 Subject: Re: Advantage/disadvantage ch... David Cake suggests as a model: >> ...for an example of a game that does it quite well, look at Ars Magica. The list is wide enough that you don't get much overlap. They also work a heroic passions system into it as well, and the list includes social status, magical flaws, demon hunted, being a foreigner, being educated, and all sorts of things. I find that it works well.<< I begin to think I'm going to have to pick up a copy of Ars Magica. The Storyteller system seems to work well, as well. I've only played one campaign of Werewolf, but the advantages/disadvantages seemed appropriate and the game could be played without them. Steve Perrin ------------------------------ End of RQ Rules Digest: V1 #115 ******************************* 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.