From: owner-rq-rules-digest To: rq-rules-digest@hops.wharton.upenn.edu Subject: RQ Rules Digest: V1 #158 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, 19 March 1995 Volume 01 : Number 158 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 Hugh Foster RQ Rules Digest: V1 #156 alex@dcs.gla.ac.uk Runepower "problems" Hugh Foster Married with kids... SPerrin@aol.com Styopa house rules: SPerrin@aol.com Criticals SPerrin@aol.com Naked Protection and more SPerrin@aol.com Kevin's Comments David Dunham via RadioMail Protection, Marriage Bruce Lionel Mason Criticals and unarmed combat Steven E Barnes Naked Protection and more SPerrin@aol.com Marriage ANDOVER@delphi.com Unarmed combat and criticals Styopa Naked Protection Styopa Criticals; power levels ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Hugh Foster <100326.446@compuserve.com> Date: 19 Mar 95 10:24:25 EST Subject: RQ Rules Digest: V1 #156 >> Parry missiles? I'd allow PCs to consciously block one or more hit locations (depending on the size of the shield) against an archer they see, but an active parry against an archer seems unlikely. Maybe this is a use for the parry chance over 100%. If 125% to Parry, can Parry missiles at 25%. << I disagree. I know; I've done it. At any range other than point-blank, short-bow and slower missiles are not that hard to anticipate. I've never faced a crossbow or longbow (fortunately! hard to re-enact safely!) but they'd be harder. I allow full parry vs thrown, half vs "normal" bow missiles, quarter v "high velocity". Halve all those at point blank range. >> One thing I've never seen in a RQ character creation system is the ability to start with a wife (or husband) and kids. I've been wondering if this is a Disadvantage (as in GURPS -- they're dependents) or an Advantage (marriage is an alliance to another bloodline, clan, or tribe). << It's something that should be manually applied by the GM only if he wants that sort of campaign. Not "randomly" attached. - ----------------------------------------------------------------- | Hugh Foster [100326,446] | | | | The man who can smile when things go wrong has though of | | someone he can blame it on (Arthur Bloch) | - ----------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ From: alex@dcs.gla.ac.uk Date: Sun, 19 Mar 95 17:34:18 GMT Subject: Runepower "problems" Nigel Smith present a strangle-familiar solution to the problem of over- stacked rune power spells: > Perhaps runepowered Divine magic should work somewhat like spirit magic - > you contribute points to the pool, which you can use towards the spells you > have 'learnt' (sacrificed for?), up to the limit you have learnt. So if you > want to stack to Shield 4, you must have sacked 4 points _specifically_ for > the Shield spell. If you have 8 pts in your RP pool, you could use them to > cast Shield 4 twice, or any other spells you have sacrificed for, as per > the usual RP system. Funnily enough, I suggested almost exactly this, in connection with my "Rune Power Too" variant, which I posted to the RQ Daily some time ago. More specifically, one needs to sack both for a normally castable spell, and for rune power points, and then one can cast either to cause a particular effect of a "known" spell, up to the number of points of that spell sacricfied for. I think the general assumption that RP means a general ramping up of the divine magic power level (as opposed to flexibility, which is the whole point, right?) needs to be questioned. If one wants the effect of RP, without the perceived extra effectiveness, adding in extra limitations or increasing the cost is hardly difficult. I suspect the "too powerful" charge is just a handy rod for RP's back, as far as its detracrtors are concerned. My personal view is these things are largely self-balancing, at least up to a point. For example, a further variant I suggested was that _all_ spell-specific sacrifices were one-use (for everyone), and only RunePower was reusable (either for everyone, or for priests, depending on whether you you use the initiate reusable magic option, a la Tales 12). A yet more restrictive approach would be to require that POW be sacrificed for each spell, but isn't "castable" at all. This way, one gets strictly less "bang for the buck" than with conventional rune magic, in return for greater flexibility. Or just up the per-spell costs, if you feel RP is overpowered wrt other forms of magic. Which I doubt, personally... Alex. ------------------------------ From: Hugh Foster <100326.446@compuserve.com> Date: 19 Mar 95 14:23:52 EST Subject: Married with kids... >> it [marriage and kids] certainly alters their conception of personal and communal property, and gives the players a sense of belonging. << It also hands the GM adventure ideas on a plate! Sometimes PCs will balk at risking all to rescue some air-head merchant's daughter; but if his own wife's been nobbled, they don't half drop everything. - ----------------------------------------------------------------- | Hugh Foster [100326,446] | | | | When in doubt, make it sound convincing. | - ----------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ From: SPerrin@aol.com Date: Sun, 19 Mar 1995 15:52:13 -0500 Subject: Re: Styopa house rules: Steveyopa says: >much interesting special rules for specials, etc.< >I have a longer version that also has special weapons rules for quarterstaves, flexible weapons, etc. Any one interested? If so, I'll post it here.< Sure, I'm interested. It'll complete my set. Steve Perrin ------------------------------ From: SPerrin@aol.com Date: Sun, 19 Mar 1995 15:52:23 -0500 Subject: Re: Criticals Nils opins: >Because hit quality increases damage. If a special or critical doubles damage and critical also igonres armour, then there is no way to do a mighty hit with increased damage that happens to hit an armoured location. It's the combination that bothers me.< So you're saying that a critical hit should either "be a normal blow that is so well placed that it evades any armor" or "be a blow of such force that it smashes past (but still deals with) most normal armor." The RQAIG rules attempt to give the player a choice. Specials double damage (perhaps the +10 we were talking about earlier is a better idea). Criticals double damage _and_ give a choice between ignoring armor but rolling for a random hit location, or calling a hit location but having to deal with normal armor. If there are no specials, should criticals still do extra damage? And should the damage be doubled or a straight add-on, like the 10 points above? And if doubled, should it be the entire damage, or just the weapon damage? Myself, I prefer the straight add-on or something like "full possible damage" to doubling because (1) doubled big weapons can get incredibly gross and (2) rolling a crit and then rolling snakeeyes (or rolling a 1 and then doubling it) is very frustrating. Any votes? Steve Perrin ------------------------------ From: SPerrin@aol.com Date: Sun, 19 Mar 1995 15:52:37 -0500 Subject: Re: Naked Protection and more In reply to David Dunham's house rule of magic protection doubles over naked skin (or is halved by armor?), Bruce Mason suggests some other alternatives: 1) Armor and magical protection don't add--six points of metal and 4 points of magic means 6 points of protection. 2) magic protection is not ignored by crits--assuming that crits still ignore armor, see previous posts. Bruce offered this as part of the previous idea, but I think it deserves separate consideration. 3) Different magical protections are not additive--Shield 2 and Protection 4 just give 4 points of Protection, but would have to be dispelled twice to get rid of the 4 points. The last idea is one I use in my Fantasy Hero campaign. I ruled that all Protection spells, whether cast or part of enchanted armor or whatever are actually the same thing, and they are not additive. This would also mean, in RQ terms, that several Protection 1s cast on an individual would still be a Protection 1 spell, which is the case as I recall. If we adopt the idea that all magic disciplines (sorcery, personal, religious) actually do the same thing in different ways and perhaps with different names, then this makes a certain amount of sense. The magician is cr eating a certain situation: it can be changed by a different spell, but not enhanced by the same condition. As with any magical theory, one mustn't overanalyse without establishing some ground rules, but it makes sense to me. Originally, RQ1&2, Rune Magic was supposed to mostly be bigger and better Battle Magic. The divergence of sorcery is a RQ3 construct that isn't necessarily useful--though some version of it (at least the names of the sorce ry spells) need to be retained for consistency. I'm not saying that the Sorcery spells should be tossed out for Battle Magic equivalents. I'm saying that all should be available to all, with the proviso that many of the arcane sorcery spells like Tap are generally available only to sorcerers, but can be part of another magic system in various possible worlds. Glorantha would, perforce, be left with the divisions much as they are. Keep thinking. Steve Perrin ------------------------------ From: SPerrin@aol.com Date: Sun, 19 Mar 1995 15:52:43 -0500 Subject: Re: Kevin's Comments Bruce Mason discusses narrative crits (essentially the crit roller gets to decide what part of the defenders actions he wants to ignore or what hit location he wants to hit) and then asks: >The main weakness of this is what about crits vs crits? I used to use any critical parry/dodge totally negates the effect of one critical attack. It was simple if nothing else.< It is not only simple, but I think fair. A crit defensive action should take precedence over a crit attack. Steve Perrin ------------------------------ From: David Dunham (via RadioMail) Date: Sun, 19 Mar 1995 13:24:09 -0800 Subject: Re: Protection, Marriage Steve Perrin responded to my idea of double Protection with no armor > Then again, it seems to me that a society with both magic (Protection) >and technology (metal armor) should have an advantage over one with just >magic. Perhaps the Orlanthi don't wear metal because they cannot afford it? The Celts invented chain mail. I do suspect most of them couldn't afford metal, but they certainly could have had leather armor, but chose not to, quite likely for magical reasons. > I've always maintained that Conan (to use the archetypal naked barbarian) >would have worn full plate if he had access to it. He did when he had the >chance later in his career. But you'll recall that Conan abhorred magic. Joerg responded to me >Then make it two spells - Padding to enhance armour, being a short effect >(i.e. the usual 5 minute affair), and Protection to use instead of armour I LIKED the fact that RQ3 dropped Xenohealing, making Healing serve both purposes. I see no reason for a separate spell to enhance armor when we already have one that increases AP. >> One thing I've never seen in a RQ character creation system is the ability >> to start with a wife (or husband) and kids. > >I wouldn't put this into the system, but mention it. Getting married is a >culturally dependent venture, and holds many a fine scenario. It's a shame to have to abstract it, but RQ:AiG can create characters as old as 39. To assume no such character is married is ludicrous. We don't really need a system for it, but it should probably be pointed out in the rules, since if you just use the system as written, you end up with isolated characters. Probably the GM is the only way to properly integrate characters into society, but the rules ought to at least suggest that characters BE members of society (even if aberrant adventurers). The Cyberpunk "lifepaths" was a nice way to give characters a little bit of a past. You probably can't do this without getting culture-specific (hence it's difficult to do in RQ4), but marriage is at least a universal institution*. * Yes, there are one or two known cultures who don't practice it, but it rounds to 100%. ------------------------------ From: Bruce Lionel Mason Date: Sun, 19 Mar 1995 18:16:54 -0330 Subject: Re: Criticals and unarmed combat On Sun, 19 Mar 1995 SPerrin@aol.com wrote: > [per criticals] > Myself, I prefer the straight add-on or something like "full possible damage" > to doubling because (1) doubled big weapons can get incredibly gross and (2) > rolling a crit and then rolling snakeeyes (or rolling a 1 and then doubling > it) is very frustrating. I've become sold on critical damage as a straight add on and +10 seems as good a number as any other. I suppose another possibility would be the return of maximum weapon damage + rolled damage eg a broadsword (1d8+1) would do 1d8+10+dam bonus. (The old RQ2 impale if I remember rightly). I think I prefer +10 though. Of course this always looks silly with unarmed combat. ``I critical my punch for 12 points of damage'' smashing through the chain-mail hood to kill someone. Did anyone ever come up with an unarmed combat system that worked? I do think RQ is too bloody. Boxing in the real world is dangerous, in RQ it's downright suicidal. > > Steve Perrin > - ---Bruce ------------------------------ From: akuma@netcom.com (Steven E Barnes) Date: Sun, 19 Mar 1995 14:34:10 -0800 Subject: Re: Naked Protection and more Steve Perrin: >The last idea is one I use in my Fantasy Hero campaign. I ruled that all >Protection spells, whether cast or part of enchanted armor or whatever are >actually the same thing, and they are not additive. This would also mean, in >RQ terms, that several Protection 1s cast on an individual would still be a >Protection 1 spell, which is the case as I recall. I agree in principle, but don't want to go quite that far. I think permanently enchanted armor increases the AP of the armor, rather than provide a permanent Protection spell. Same thing for armor enchanting tattoos. [...] > Originally, RQ1&2, Rune Magic was supposed to mostly be bigger and better >Battle Magic. This is the direction I am going on with my overhaul of Rune magic. Many spells basically boost your existing battle magic. For example, Shield would stack with Protection and Countermagic. In addition to allowing you to exceed your battlemagic spell limits, it also enables the spells to be cast in one strike rank. - -steve ------------------------------ From: SPerrin@aol.com Date: Sun, 19 Mar 1995 20:50:19 -0500 Subject: Re: Marriage David Dunham opins on character marriage: >It's a shame to have to abstract it, but RQ:AiG can create characters as old as 39. To assume no such character is married is ludicrous.< Actually, to assume that no such character _has been_ married is ludicrous. Even in a culture with Healing spells, people are probably going to die younger than they do in ours; also, many ancient cultures allowed for divorce. On the other hand, having ones spouse die or abandon one may be an incentive to become an adventurer--a lifestyle with a notorious intolerance for family ties. Steve Perrin ------------------------------ From: ANDOVER@delphi.com Date: Sun, 19 Mar 1995 20:56:35 -0500 (EST) Subject: Unarmed combat and criticals Bruce Mason's post reminded me of one of the funniest-ever episodes in our CoC games!: facing an Arab cultist with a machine gun, a fighter shoots him with a pistol at point-blank range, no serious effect; then the woman in the party punches him: kills him! Never having seen the AIG rules, I have the vague opinion that they made some sort of distinction between knock-out and killing damage? Jim Chapin ------------------------------ From: "Styopa" Date: Sun, 19 Mar 95 21:51:28 CST Subject: Re: Naked Protection On Sat, 18 Mar 1995 14:16:21 -0330, Bruce Lionel Mason wrote: >Not a bad idea. Another possibility might be to say that magical and >physical armor don't add up. <...some stuff clipped...> >I expect this idea has been debated before, but at least on first >thoughts I can see it working quite well. It would definitely cut down >on all those armored tanks running around out there. Iron plate, shield >4 and protect 6 style. > Isn't this already in someways addressed? In my campaigns, every non-elf/troll is eager to get their hands on iron weapons & armour...and given that iron is inimical to magic, you are unlikely to find them enchanted (wait, is that my own house rule...hm, maybe it is. well, that's how I deal with it anyway.... :) - -Steve ------------------------------ From: "Styopa" Date: Sun, 19 Mar 95 22:01:51 CST Subject: Re: Criticals; power levels >Shield spells: I've lost track of how common this spell is in RQ3. >In RQ2, everyone got it. The first thing to do is re-install stacking >limits. A Shield 4 is bad enough; lets not allow Shield 10... The >next solution is to create general damage boosting divine spells which >are as common as shield, and effectively negate the protection of Shield >on a point for point basis. What does anyone think about limiting spirit magic to the casters POW/3? (I.e. a flexible stackability - in my own campaign I use a POW/5 limit for spirit magic that's non-cultural fo rthe character, or POW/4 for the kind of spells "Uncle Joe" might have known back home. Shamans generally have a POW/2 limit, but that's a much more complicated subject...) >Another rule I use is that "magic always stops magic". Meaning that >if I have 10 points of magical protection, and you have 10 points of >damage boosting, my protection will always stop the damage boosting, >even on a critical hit. This is to stop "nuclear" effect of crits >in high power games. I have used this sort of 'stripping' effect of magic, and it has worked pretty well. Magic cancels magic first, i.e. my bladesharp 3 vs. your protection 4 will result in a protection 1 for you vs. my normal blade. it generally tones down vicious speedart & multimissles to a reasonable level. >I've always played that a critical ignores damage, *and* gets the >damage boost of a special. That usually does the job... By the >way, I think the damage benefit of a special should be a linear >damage bonus, like +1d6 or +2d6. Doubling damage (or rolling twice) >just encourages people to carry the largest weapon available. IMHO, there are other penalties (weight, slow speed, etc) to always just grabbing the biggest weapon one can find.... - -Steve ------------------------------ End of RQ Rules Digest: V1 #158 ******************************* 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.