From: owner-rq-rules-digest To: rq-rules-digest@hops.wharton.upenn.edu Subject: RQ Rules Digest: V1 #129 Reply-To: rq-rules Errors-To: owner-rq-rules-digest Precedence: bulk Content-Return: Prohibited Return-Path: owner-rq-rules-digest RQ Rules Digest: Tuesday, 7 March 1995 Volume 01 : Number 129 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. 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 Liam_McCauley@qsp.co.uk Overpowering Magic Colin Watson Quick Training Colin Watson Quick Training Henk Langeveld - Sun Nederla V1#128, Tainted Rune Power... jonas.schiott@vinga.hum.gu.s Counting Points. David Cheng RunePower Naming Conventions Dave Pearton RQ Rules Digest: V1 #128 Hugh Foster Widgetspell (creature) Trystero... Cloud Call / Cloud Clear Bryan J. Maloney The common use of magic Bryan J. Maloney The "right" way to interpret magic Hugh Foster RQ Rules Digest: V1 #128 ANDOVER@delphi.com Tap ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liam_McCauley@qsp.co.uk Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 13:56:21 -0000 Subject: Re: Overpowering Magic Jim Chapin & Dave Cake have made the point that the average person in RQ uses personal magic. This tends to be in conflict with legend / most fantasy literature. In our Thieves World game, we have reduced the available spell teaching only to those that are training for a career in the church. So, your average lay person or initiate will not get spirit magic (or maybe a point or two as reward for some service), whilst an initiate who is very active in the church (effectively an "apprentice" priest - I know there's a better word, but I can't think of it) will be able to request magic. This has changed the feel of the game to more accurately reflect the books, and cut down on the GM's work in combat. Another GM in our group has changed his Middle Earth game to use the RQ system, but has pretty much completely missed out the magic system. There were some tense moments after the last combat when someone fumbled their first aid roll. No Heal spells to get us out of that one. I think the proliferation of spirit spells amongst the Gloranthan population should be described as a special case in the AiG book, whilst the core rules should not imply that this is the case in most worlds, like they did in RQIII. Incidentaly, we've started using critical = 1/10 chance of success; result is +5 damage points, as suggested by someone on this list. This seems to have worked very well, and I thank the original author (sorry, can't remember who it was). We're also using the smaller AP & damage points for weapons & armour detailed by Oliver & (I think) BrandonQuest. ------------------------------ From: Colin Watson Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 14:13:40 GMT Subject: Quick Training David Dunham observes: > Alas, RQ3 has some really elegant but horrible-to-use rules, like the > training system. What could be simpler than training for hours=skill? But > in our games, we often had weeks-long training time available. If you have > 100 hours, how much can your skill increase? (Made harder by the increase > being random, therefore you might well want to roll each time.) We've been using the following kludge-table for years: CURRENT SKILL INCREASE PER WEEK 11%-20% +4% 21%-40% +3% 41%-60% +2% (60%+ +1% ?) It's extrapolated from the hourly system given in the books: "current skill = z%, so spend z hours to get a 2% increase". (I believe the errata changed this to 1%. Personally I think training takes quite long enough as it was:). Skills of 10% or lower don't fit in neatly, but they all end up in mid-teens after 50 hours (1 week) anyway. Just call it 15% (or work it out by hand). Skills much over 60% cause problems too but you can work them out by hand if you want (don't often train skills over 60% anyway:-) I can't tell you how much time this has saved over the years, but it's a helluva lot. ___ CW. ------------------------------ From: Colin Watson Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 14:30:03 GMT Subject: Re: Quick Training Actually, where I said 60% it should probably be more like 75%; but, like I said, training high skills doesn't happen very often (they mostly increase by experience). ------------------------------ From: Henk.Langeveld@Holland.Sun.COM (Henk Langeveld - Sun Nederland) Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 16:08:11 +0100 Subject: Re: V1#128, Tainted Rune Power... On the subject of tainted Rune Power... The Mythological approach. Rune Power comes from within. POW is not tainted in any way. People can transfer personal POW from their soul into the pool. Only when this power is used, does it become "tainted" with certain Runes and/or Gods. The expense of POW/RP involves a conscious choice made by the character in case... It is the person's next step on his/her own mythological path. Every time you cast a warlike spell, it will re-inforce your link with the god(s) of war. If it is a very cult-specific spell, you reinforce your bond with that particular cult. What effect does this have for the rules? In any case, *no* bookkeeping up-front. But we might need to introduce another stat, tracking how much power someone has spent on a certain spell. Something like Pendragon's traits and passions, perhaps... On the other hand, I would not like to add yet another mechanism to the rules... > From: Colin Watson > [... ] I'd prefer to steer clear of labelling it "Divine". > It implies that this brand of magic is only available through the > intervention of a God. > > If we're talking generic RQ then I think we should leave "Divine Magic" open > to humanists/atheists too. The humanists/atheists would not acknowledge the existence of Gods, but they would either pragmatically recognise certain patterns on the planes of myth, or they would not use this type of magic at all... IMO, Saint's blessings in Glorantha are nothing but a form of Divine Magic... The *real* atheists would not bother with this type of magic, as it would taint part of their soul with those "mythological" patterns, and gradually losing control over their actions. They'd use Sorcery. > From: Mike Cule > Subject: More Sorcery Idiocy: Familiars [Proposes using POW for enhancing/creating Familiar stats] > One of my players commented that this proposal is like making Create > Familiar the inverse of Tap. My thoughts exactly... An interesting proposal... ------------------------------ From: jonas.schiott@vinga.hum.gu.se Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 19:11:02 +0100 Subject: Counting Points. Steve explains: >Since RQ is the game that doesn't use experience points, then why have things >like hit points and magic points? Indeed. In fact, why have skill points or characteristic points? Why not just have text descriptions and make this a free-form game? ;-> > Damage up to and including the Threshold does some kind of temporary >damage, perhaps alleviated with a CON roll. Multiples of the Threshold do >more lasting damage OK, lessee... Take as an example a location (any location) with 4 HP - I mean a Threshold of 4. What you're proposing is that any hit in the 1-4 range has the same (low) effect, 5-8 has another (more serious) and so on. Assuming damage is still cumulative, two 1-hit scratches equal one 8-hit wallop. Uh, no, this doesn't seem like such a hot idea. Or, if it's cumulative in another sense, namely just adding _effects_, not damage levels (or whatever you call them), you can take any number of low-damage hits withiut ever suffering the effect of a serious wound. And, as David pointed out, you still have to keep track of the damage done in _some- way. So I don't think I like it either... My guess is that you're unhappy with low-damage hits (1-3 points in the above example) having _no_ effect? I can agree with such a sentiment, but there has to be a better way of getting around it. In fact, I have a way around it in my homebrew rules, but they're based on Pendragon, not RQ. :-( ------------------------------ From: David Cheng Date: Tue, 7 Mar 95 13:55:45 EST Subject: RunePower Naming Conventions Steve Perrin sez: % Oh, and with respect to David Cheng, it occurs to me that we need a % different term than Rune _Power_, just to avoid confustion with the % attribute of POWer. David Cheng deserves no respect! It was actually David Hall, or Nick Brooke, who coined the name "RunePower." I had the article drafted for _Tales_, but I told Mr Hall "We need a good title..." - -DC ------------------------------ From: Dave Pearton Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 11:36:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: RQ Rules Digest: V1 #128 Steven E. Barnes: > David Dunham: > > >>I believe that the individual becomes associated with the runes of > >>his god. If he happens to worship a god with overlapping runes, > >>then the points in common can be used for either diety, even if they > >>have absolutely zero mythic associations. > > > >It's hard to imagine that my Humakt Rune Power can be used to cast Yelm or > >Lhankor Mhy spells. > > The Humakti can use his MP to cast battle magic of other gods... This is not the same thing at all - battle magic is "personal magic" where a person exerts his own will (sic) to power the spell. With Rune Magic the person sacrifices part of his soul to his god to gain the use of part of his _god's power_. (IMHO anyway). The thing I don't like with these rune power ideas is that they cut out a lot of the "personal" interaction between the character and his god - the god becomes much more like a cosmic battery than is now the case :(. > > In fact, it would be rather hard to become an initiate of such > different gods in the first place (unless you are illuminated, in > which case, my idea makes perfect sense). This is merely nitpicking, and illuminates are a seperate case anyway - they are a Gloranthan phenomena that should not be addressed in "generic rules". > > Anyway, the idea is that only the Truth rune portion (in the case of > Humakt, 1/3 of the pool) can be shared with Lhankor Mhy spells) > > What I am really doing is giving the character separate pools of > "flavored" mana. To cast a Humakt Detect Truth spell would require > 1 point of Truth rune, for example. Um, if you are going to do this amount of bookeeping by keeping tally of seperate rune power pools, why not do the logical thing and keep the rune power pool sacrificed to different gods (sic) separate? Yak - -- *********************************************************************** Dave Pearton * ....As I was saying before I Biochemistry Dept. * was so rudely interrupted University of Washington * by one of my multiple Seattle * personalities.... pearton@u.washington.edu * pearton@unpsun1.cc.unp.ac.za * Naked Lunch (W.S. Burroughs) ************************************************************************ ------------------------------ From: Hugh Foster <100326.446@compuserve.com> Date: 07 Mar 95 14:02:48 EST Subject: Widgetspell (creature) >> Let me propose that Shapchanging specifies only the 'target' shape and can be used on any living thing. However transformations should be easier for subjects << The same problem I've found applies to Detect spells. Nobody, but nobody, seems to take them, because they can't think of anything they'd like to detect uber alles. Any suggestions ? ------------------------------ From: wire@trystero.iii.net (Trystero...) Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 15:42:58 -0500 Subject: Cloud Call / Cloud Clear A player with an Issaries/Orlanth initiate (currently striving towards Storm Voice status) asked me last night why Cloud Call and Cloud Clear are so weak, and I couldn't think of a good answer. They really are pretty unimpressive spells as written: IMHO, a one-point Rune spell ought to be able to shift the cloud cover more than one percentile. The only justification I could come up with was that maybe the game designers had intended weather manipulation to be something that could be accomplished only by huge numbers of Orlanthi (for instance) working together (so you'd need a *whole lot* of priests to make any serious changes in the weather). Even this idea kind of goes wrong, however, when you realize that all these Storm Voices wielding the power of their god can't make a cloud last more than fifteen minutes without Extension. I proposed (tentatively) a binary-effect spell, whereby the caster can either: (a) Alter the cloud cover by 10% for the spell's duration; or (b) Alter the cloud cover by 1% permanently. "Permanently" means only that the change becomes part of the natural weather system, not that it won't ever dissipate. This means that a single Storm Voice with a few points of Cloud Call can quickly fill the sky with enough storm clouds to let him call upon Orlanth's Thunderbolt spell, but he can't make any serious difference to the world's weather without lots of allies praying with him. If anyone else can think of a better solution, or can justify the original writeup better than I did, I'd like to hear from you. ObRQ4: I like RunePower. And traffic lights. - --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Douglas .S. Bailey wire@trystero.iii.net 217 Park Avenue #111 Worcester MA 01609-2243 http://www.iii.net/users/wire/wire.html - --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) Date: Tue, 7 Mar 95 17:53:20 -0500 Subject: The common use of magic The common use of magic by everyday people may contradict the cliches of bad fantasy literature, but it is very much WITHIN the parameters of both the corpus of human legend AND the way that non-technological societies live--even the way that some technological societies live today. Indonesia sees no contradiction between the technocratic and the magical worldviews, and an Indonesian will adopt both ways of thinking--and manage to reconcile them. The idea of widespread personal magic has AMPLE precedent, regardless of the cliches of 20th century Western "fantasy literature". ------------------------------ From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) Date: Tue, 7 Mar 95 17:56:06 -0500 Subject: The "right" way to interpret magic Folks, why are you arguing over the correct way to interpret Rune Magic/ Divine Magic, Rune Power, etc? This is just plain foolish. The point of the new _RuneQuest_ is NOT to give a single worldview but to let a GM make and run a consistent, mythically relevant world that is NOT restricted to a single worldview. Step outside Glorantha. _RuneQuest_ should present several options to the GM. Adventures in Glorantha will pick the options that fit Glorantha. ------------------------------ From: Hugh Foster <100326.446@compuserve.com> Date: 07 Mar 95 14:03:31 EST Subject: RQ Rules Digest: V1 #128 >> my impression from GMing the Viking adventures was that magic was somewhat too powerful for the campaign world. Is this new, fancy, improved RQ just an excuse for the worst kind of powergaming hidden behind the (obligatory) anti AD & D rhetoric? Just a nasty question! << Yes, a nasty question - but a genuine problem. The (allegedly) upcoming new RQ could take a leaf out of Gurps' book here, and provide a GM's advice section on how to run campaigns with the magic throttled back some, or even all of the way. My Vike campaign used virtually no magic; the odd eveil sorcerer (tm) and a few battle spells were it for a very long while. That's one of the beauties of RQ; it stands up fine as a historical roleplaying framework without magic at all! ------------------------------ From: ANDOVER@delphi.com Date: Tue, 07 Mar 1995 18:14:06 -0500 (EST) Subject: Tap OK, I think I won my point on befuddle, soince those who defended the spell did so because they have not been following the "instant killer" (aka AD&D sleep) RQIII rules as written. Give the guy a chance to parry, and the spell at least is defensible (pun intended!). Now, Tap. My problem with Tap is that it is too weak! Yes, you heard me! Tap as written in RQIII is essentially a torture spell -- a really nasty threat to your player when held by an enemy sorceror. ut it is no temptation to a player sorceror to use because there are so many easier and less horrible ays to get mps and fatigue points. OK, I think I won my point on befuddle, soince those who defended the spell did so because they have not been following the "instant killer" (aka AD&D sleep) RQIII rules as written. Give the guy a chance to parry, and the spell at least is defensible (pun intended!). Now, Tap. My problem with Tap is that it is too weak! Yes, you heard me! Tap as written in RQIII is essentially a torture spell -- a really nasty threat to your player when held by an enemy sorceror. But it is no temptation to a player sorceror to use because there are so many easier and less horrible ays to get mps and fatigue points.OK, I think I won my point on befuddle, since those who defended the spell did so because they have not been following the "instant killer" (aka AD&D sleep) RQIII rules as written. Give the guy a chance to parry, and the spell at least is defensible (pun intended!). Now, Tap. My problem with Tap is that it is too weak! Yes, you heard me! Tap as written in RQIII is essentially a torture spell -- a really nasty threat to your player when held by an enemy sorceror. But it is no temptation to a player sorceror to use because there are so many easier and less horrible ways to get mps and fatigue points.Tap SHOULD be a temptation to a player character, but there is only one way to make it so: it increases POW, not mp! But there is a small danger involved, as we play it: a 1% chance per use that you take on some characteristic of what you are tapping! This can be good or bad or indifferent, just some contagion effect! It hasn't happened to any of our players yet, because only 1 of them ever used the spell! Jim Chapin ------------------------------ End of RQ Rules Digest: V1 #129 ******************************* 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.