From: owner-rq-rules-digest To: rq-rules-digest@hops.wharton.upenn.edu Subject: RQ Rules Digest: V2 #52 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, 29 August 1995 Volume 02 : Number 052 TABLE OF CONTENTS David Cake Even more DI Craig K howdy Cedric Chausson My take on Humakt DI Majordomo Skill Checks (fwd) Sandy Petersen Humakti courage David Cake Humakti courage RULES OF THE ROAD 1. Do not include large sections of a message in your reply. Especially not to add "Yeah, I agree" or "No, I disagree." Or be excoriated. If someone writes something good and you want to say "good show" please do. But don't include the whole message you praise. 2. Use an appropriate Subject line. 3. Learn the art of paraphrasing: Don't just quote and comment on a point-by-point basis. When paraphrasing you demonstrate exactly how well you understand the point someone was trying to make. 4. There is no number 4. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: davidc@cs.uwa.edu.au (David Cake) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 14:00:23 +0800 Subject: Even more DI > Of course not. Hence my near-blanket prohibition on >permitting Humakt to DI to rescue oneself from a sticky situation. >Perhaps that wasn't clear in the way I explained myself. > To repeat: I play that Humakt does NOT rescue a DIer from >danger, but he _will_ act to rescue one of the supplicant's >subordinates or friends. Presumably an urge upon a Humakti's part to >save a friend tends towards the heroic or at the worst, the >tactical necessity. > I play that Humakt will rescue a DIer from what he perceives as real dangers to them or the cults interests - he just doesn't consider dieing to be a danger. Sure Humakt values bravery, and dieing with honour. Doesn't mean he is stupid, or much less inclined to help his worshippers than other gods. >>But Gloranthan gods aren't omniscient -- shouldn't it be possible >>for a character to fool Humakt into believeing he just needs to be >>transported out of this combat so he can get into another? > I don't play that a DI involves a roleplayed conversation >between the supplicant and god. The player simply emotes a >deeply-felt concept and the god answers if and as it sees fit. How >would the player so convince Humakt? They convince Humakt by sincerely believing that a tactical retreat is both the right thing to do and honourable, is pretty much how I see it. Humakt simply won't answer if the character believes it is dishonourable or cowardly. In general, Humakt is a lot more likely to give a helping hand than teleport you out, though. A good rule of thumb - if there was a powerful Sword, a paragon of Humakti virtue, there - what would they do? That is pretty much what Humakt will do. Will a powerful Sword help their comrades escape? Sometimes. >David >>I think it is far too simplistic to say that Humakt will not help >>his worshippers escape from trouble. I can think of many >>circumstances where he will. He will help them escape if vampires >>are going to kill them > I dinna agree, but whatever makes your players grin ... >Looky here David, if people were known to DI to Humakt to get in a >position to kill vampires anywhere _near_ often as they DIed to >escape the damn things, I might agree witcha. > So - Orlanth or someone will help you escape from vampires, but Humakt will encourage you to go out and fight them, but then won't help you escape if you get in real trouble? Pull the other one. You seem to have a fundamental apprehension about what DI is for, as well - I see it as being in general something you do to cope with the unforeseen disaster, not something anyone (certainly not anyone without 1d10 DI) actually does deliberately in order to get themselves into trouble! Humakt encourages his worshippers to fight vampires, and gives them access to his divine power to help attack them, in the form of Turn Undead and other spells. Humakt despises undead, and hates the idea of any of his worshippers becoming undead. But you say he would rather have their soul eaten and their body zombified than help them escape by granting a DI? It seems perfectly sensible to me that Humakt rescues them if despite all their training they end up serious trouble - your point of view sounds a lot more like the GM talking than Humakt! Not that the Humakti in my campiagn has had to DI to escape from vampires yet, but it is quite possible that he might when they meet the ancient centaur and minotaur vampires in the Blind Kings Castle.... [DIing to teleport out] > Second, I believe that this kind of DI _is_ cowardly. First, lets assume that it is in a combat situation or whatever - does rationality have nothing to do with it? You might think that dieing pointlessly is merely cowardly, but I think it is just plain stupid - and I think many of the gods may agree with me. At least in my game. Second - sometimes the options are just escape or death. Are you trapped by the cave in and going to die from lack of air? I wouldn't say that not wanting to die is necessarily cowardly. > When I DI someone back from the brink of death I admit the >PC is always restored at full hit points. When enemy Rune Lords are >in battle, I typically have them DI once to restore themselves to >health, but if they're KOed again, the second DI is a "get me out of >here" type action. > I generally assume that if a DI his granted, the deity will try and set things up so that they are not going to be DIed to again in the same encounter. If a Rune Lord DIs to stay alive, I certainly don't think they should immediately start fighting again! They should thank the lord that they are alive! This is not a blanket rule, though. In situations where merely restoring full health and allowing them to fight on suits the gods purposes, then I might allow it. But if restoring them to full health and consciousness only results in them DIing again two minutes later, then the deity will do something else. Say, save their life but not restore consciousness and let them be captured, or teleport them a few meters away from the fight. Not that the deity is always correct, but they can make a reasonable guess, and they probably have some idea how the fight is going. Cheers Dave ------------------------------ From: Craig K Date: Tue, 29 Aug 95 10:44:00 BST Subject: Re: howdy Quite Long. ---------- > In the first place, my own campaign generally boasts zero >(0) allied spirits at any given time. Plus the whole party, even >counting bound spirits and stuff, rarely exceeds 10 people. So the >hell with the 10 person ruleme. How many guys do _you_ have in a >group? Not many but we do have several Rune Levels. These people do on occasion take a numbers of initiates with them so swelling party ranks. They are; of course; responsible for these initiates. > Second, I believe that this kind of DI _is_ cowardly. >There's no getting around it. If you want to be heroic, DI a friend >out of trouble. Of course, if you're from a cowardly cult, go for >it! I disagree. Retreating from a impossible position is sensible not cowardly. Leaving everyone else while you retreat, that's cowardly. Taking your friends with you while retreating and sacraficing your power to do it, that could easily be seen as heroic. > Note that I might let a god _help_ a whole party escape from >danger. For instance, if an Orlanthi lord DIed to help his whole >party who was on the verge of defeat, I might raise a thick fog that >nobody could see in. Then the party has an enhanced chance to get >away, though its possible someone will get left behind in the >confusion. But it's not as gross as popping everyone back to the >inn. This depends on your campaign I guess. When I talk about Teleport, I do actually mean transportation to another place by some means; not necessarily "beam me up scotty". Creating a fog or blinding trolls with light whilst you attempt to make your escape is fine but probably wouldn't work for us. By the time our characters realise that a DI retreat is needed two thirds of them are normally incapacitated. At this point the arrival of a 20M sylph to rush you and your kin away is more appreciated than a distraction that may not even give you enough time to go an retrieve your fellow strugglers. Also, in our campaign any DI based escape always transports you to a Temple of your God, much like a guided teleport spell would. This can prove rather awkward it would have just fought your way through half of Dorastor and DI only to find yourself back in Pavis. This rule tends to make players less likely to go for a retreating DI unless there desparate as they can undo all their recent work. If you are allowing players to "TELEPORT" to anywhere they want then this could be a bit frustrating. Actually quite a fun one is to transport your players to a Temple thats about to be under attack. Limiting to 10 (see last message) can also have some interesting side effects. In a recent adventure two Yemalio RuneLords convinced a Storm Khan to aid them on a Troll hunting mission in the rubble. The Yelamians took a number of initiates. About two hours in to the expedition they realised they had bitten off a lot more than they could chew. Hopelessly out numbered by trolls, with half their group dead one of the two Yemalio runelords DI'ed to return him and his to their Temple in SunDome. They released that the Storm Khan and his allied Spirit would have counted as 4 people (not being in the same cult) so they left him. The Storm Khan now abandoned did manage to escape by doing a deal with the trolls, but man was he annoyed. As you can imagine this has lead to some interesting plot twists. Keith K.Craig@lancaster.ac.uk ------------------------------ From: Cedric Chausson Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 13:16:54 GMT Subject: My take on Humakt DI Salut everybody, I must say the conversation has been interesting to say the least. One important point I think is that DI must be adapted according to the God who is invoked. There is no such thing as a standard DI where basically you get to ask for what you want whatever the god you are invoking. With this POV in mind, it seems to me that this restricts the way Humakt DI can be used. Humakt is a god of War and Death. He will be willing to help a follower in a way that will go along to his principle. In effect, that means that except in the most unusual circumstances(ie the character has on him a very valuable Humakti relic) he will not DI a person out of danger. But he will give him a hand in defeating his opponent. He would also DI a person out if there is no conflict going on(ie the person is in a collapsing cave but not figthing). And IMHO Humakt will not DI the comrades of his follower out of a fight. I think it is important to remember that Humakt believes that Death is a natural thing that will happen to everybody. In this sense why help people get out when they will eventually die. Again an exception is made if there is no fighting going around. So finally I think the important point is whether a fight is going on. I this is the case, characters can forget about being teleported out and can start trying to figure out how to use his help wisely. If there is no combat, then Humakt will get them out of trouble. Cedric the Heretic C.P.Chausson@stud.man.ac.uk "Violence is always a possible solution... but it is only rarely the best" ------------------------------ From: Majordomo Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 09:08:46 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Skill Checks (fwd) Forwarded message: From postmaster@hops.wharton.upenn.edu Sun Aug 27 22:23:40 1995 From: "Akkerman, Justin" To: owner-rq-rules Subject: Re: Skill Checks Date: Mon, 28 Aug 95 12:18:00 EST Message-ID: <3042417A@msmailv0.telecom.com.au> Encoding: 17 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Richard Staats wrote: >> To accomodate the repeated usage, the RQ IV rules should >> *definitely* have a provision for the GM to award skill percentages >> when he or she deems appropriate. For example, if the PCs ride some >> animal for a week as part of a journey and all have 25% riding skill >> or less, it seems completely reasonable for them all to gain (5+d6)% >> in riding skill. Such a provision already exists. It is called skill research. On that week journey if those inexperienced characters spend 40 hours in the saddle (my pity goes out to their backsides) they have spent 40 hours researching that skill. As soon as this number of hours equals their skill percentage they get an experience check. They will most likely get two gain rolls from that journey plus the one they get from riding hellbent for leather escaping from the pack of broos. ------------------------------ From: Sandy Petersen Date: Tue, 29 Aug 95 10:56:10 -0500 Subject: Re: Humakti courage Rich Staats >A consistent approach is that Humakt would teleport the Humakti away >if Humakt thought this was in the best interests of Humakt. Humakt, being less than omniscient, may have trouble figgering this out when summoned on the spur of the moment. I hold that my rule of transporting away _other_ people only clearly maintains the Humakti theme of courage and valor. >Things like warning a village of an impending attack by a mass of >undead and all the training a Deathlord could do for Humakt over the >years are overarching concerns when compared to having the >individual die due to a stroke of bad luck. Pshaw. (I can say that because Rich is my pal.) The Sword doesn't need to teleport himself to warn a village of impending attack -- "Oh Humakt, warn the village of impending attack. I shall stay here and slay all I can." Then a giant raven (or whatever) flies down to the village and gives them the warning. They'll sure as hell listen. I don't think Humakt totes up all the training a lord could do over the years. He's not a bean-counter, and he doesn't give a shit about how many converts he gets. What he's concerned about is the state of the soul of that one Sword right now, and if the response of the Sword, when finally put into a really dangerous situation, is to start bargaining ("If you get me out of this mess I promise I'll come back next week -- and think of all the converts I'll accrue for you over the years if I can live."), then perhaps he wasn't a true Sword after all. Consider an early Christian martyr. Surely when asked to sacrifice to Nero or be thrown to the lions, such a person could reason to himself, "Well, if I _pretend_ to worship the Emperor, I'll be allowed to live, and I can secretly still worship Christ, plus think of all the converts I'll be able to get during the rest of my long happy and safe life. That's certainly much more cost-effective than having my bones broken and flesh ripped into fragments." But the martyrs didn't reason that way (at least not the ones who are now canonized), and I don't think that Humakti should reason that way. >A consistent approach is that Humakt would teleport the Humakti away >if Humakt thought this was in the best interests of Humakt. Another reason I object to this idea, despite its excellence in theory is that it leaves the onus on the Gamemaster. He must make an arbitrary decision and his players know it. I'd much rather have a stringent rule which the GM can then be a good guy and bend or break than have a liberal rule which makes the GM like a villain every time he enforces it. ------------------------------ From: davidc@cs.uwa.edu.au (David Cake) Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 10:34:46 +0800 Subject: Re: Humakti courage >Rich Staats >>A consistent approach is that Humakt would teleport the Humakti >away >if Humakt thought this was in the best interests of Humakt. > Humakt, being less than omniscient, may have trouble >figgering this out when summoned on the spur of the moment. I hold >that my rule of transporting away _other_ people only clearly >maintains the Humakti theme of courage and valor. > The Humakti themes of rationality and good tactical sense are obviously less appreciated by your version of Humakt. I have this sudden impression of the extremely brave but extraordinarily dim Humakti valiantly refusing retreat inside castle walls, etc. > What he's concerned about is >the state of the soul of that one Sword right now, and if the >response of the Sword, when finally put into a really dangerous >situation, is to start bargaining ("If you get me out of this mess I >promise I'll come back next week -- and think of all the converts >I'll accrue for you over the years if I can live."), then perhaps he >wasn't a true Sword after all. And what happens when the threat is not a merely physical one, BTW? The state of the soul of a Humakti captured by vampires is lunch. >>A consistent approach is that Humakt would teleport the Humakti >away >if Humakt thought this was in the best interests of Humakt. > Another reason I object to this idea, despite its >excellence in theory is that it leaves the onus on the Gamemaster. >He must make an arbitrary decision and his players know it. Yep. I thought making arbitrary decisions was what being a gamemaster is all about. And my players know that if they are DIing, it is becauese they have messed up bad, and they really should die. If I save them, then they are happy. If I don't, then they would have died anyway. Personally, I think that considering how hard it is to become a Sword, and considering their great vulnerability anyway (they can't be resurrected, which many other deities do all the time), Humakt had better take care of them or he isn't going to have any. Cheers David Computing Officer | Arts Faculty | Uni. of Western Australia | ------------------------------ End of RQ Rules Digest: V2 #52 ****************************** 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. WWW material at http://hops.wharton.upenn.edu/~loren/rolegame.html