From: owner-rq-rules-digest To: rq-rules-digest@hops.wharton.upenn.edu Subject: RQ Rules Digest: V2 #178 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, 6 February 1996 Volume 02 : Number 178 TABLE OF CONTENTS David Dunham Critical impales; High Level Scott Ellsworth Critical impales; High Level David Cake Vampire Familiars Nigel Smith Vampire Familiars Stian A. Fagereng 2h as 1h Jason D. Hendricks 2h as 1h Bernuetz, Oliver: WPG 2h as 1h martin 102541.3423@compuserv Realism at higher levels Stian A. Fagereng 2h as 1h Bernuetz, Oliver: WPG 2h as 1h Nicholas Marcelja 2h as 1h 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: dunham@pensee.com (David Dunham) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 1996 21:55:34 -0800 Subject: Re: Critical impales; High Level Nigel Smith answered me: >>I've always played that a critical doesn't get stuck; I think that's in the >>rules. > >Sorry, can't find it. Is it another erratum, or was it an RQ4 thing (you >lucky playtester, you). Must have been either an erratum or a house rule. Or maybe I'm remembering this from an RQ2 clarification. Martin Laurie wrote: >As I said, I find the week recuperation thing to be a bit of a rules construct >and therefore too obviously unrealistic. So why is a week a rules construct and a day isn't? Why not roll for checks after each check? The whole concept is a rules construct. If you were being realistic, you'd probably want a failure followed by a success (at the skill itself) in order to learn something, indicating that you'd seen how to correct your initial mistake. While there are special circumstances, I believe the Pavis Syndrome (adventure every other day, or every other week, depending on house rules) is unrealistic, and nobody could keep that up for long. >>>if the system functioned well enough to give >>>powerful characters the motivations and roleplaying cues that would >>>facilitate >>>the play, then there wouldn't have to be this fear of tough characters. > >>It has nothing to do with the game system, it has to do with realism. >you say there is nothing wrong with the game system at >higher levels No, I said my objection to rapid advancement to high level stems from realism, not the rules. (The rules probably can't handle it, but since I aim for a more realistic campaign, that doesn't bother me much.) Obviously, it would be nice if the rules *could* handle tough combat characters better, and there have been some proposals which could help, notably the different ideas of more interesting results from Special attacks. David Dunham Pensee Corporation dunham@pensee.com Voice/Fax: 206 783 7404 http://www.pensee.com/dunham/ "I say we should listen to the customers and give them what they want." "What they want is better products for free." --Scott Adams ------------------------------ From: fuz@deltanet.com (Scott Ellsworth) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 1996 23:39:56 -0800 Subject: Re: Critical impales; High Level >Nigel Smith answered me: > >>As I said, I find the week recuperation thing to be a bit of a rules construct >>and therefore too obviously unrealistic. > >So why is a week a rules construct and a day isn't? Why not roll for checks >after each check? The whole concept is a rules construct. If you were being >realistic, you'd probably want a failure followed by a success (at the >skill itself) in order to learn something, indicating that you'd seen how >to correct your initial mistake. What I have been considering is an hours-based system, where the key bookkeeping construct is the hour of efficient training and study. Conversions from that to skill success chances is, of course, where the difficulty oif such a system comes in, but it makes it fairly easy to set up a game world - decide in advance how good training with a master crafter is as compared with figuring something out on your own, and off you go. I decided a while ago that the old Mega-traveller task and difficulty based setup is likely the best way to implement something like this, in that a novice finds even the simple things a challenge, while a mster need the impossible to get really challeneged. This way, a master who makes yet another trivial doo-dad gets only the barest minimum credit for the action, perhaps only enough to keep his hand in, while a novice that succeeded would get some serious hour equivalents for figuring out such a thing. Likewise, a master finds it very difficult to find anyone who he can learn from, while a novice could get some information from nearly anyone. To implement this in an RQ-like system, I would likely create an hour table for skill levels, note that some skills cannot be trained by any normal means, bbut here are the hour totals if they could be, then use a level of success kind of thing. If the task is hard, such that you needed a special to succeed, then a novice might get serious credit for it, while a master might get little. What I like about this kind of mechanic is that it gives a tangible, if small, reward for a master who seeks tough problems. It also rewards seeking problems beyond your actual level, with the caveat that people who try the impossible usually die. Scott - ------- scott@deltanet.com "You die, she dies, EVERYbody dies" - Heavy Metal "When a great many people are unable to find work, unemployment results" - Calvin Coolidge, attrib. by Stanley Walker, City Editor, p. 131 (1934) ------------------------------ From: David Cake Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 17:25:55 +0800 Subject: Re: Vampire Familiars > I would take a long hard look at what the vampire gains in becoming >POWless in the first place, then work out what special abilities the >vampire would loose when the sorceror gifts it POW under the create >familiar ritual. I don't think it loses any special abilities. I understand the GM kneejerk reaction to water down any player attempt to get cute with the rules like this one - but I think its the wrong reaction. >OK, so it may no longer need to suck blood, but why should >it still be able to turn to smoke, or possess higher stats than the average >human. > Hey, its just a vampire that happens to have borrowed some POW on a semi-permanent basis. Its still a vampire, with all the problems and disadvantages of such a state. For a start, it does still need to suck blood - - failing to suck blood causes fatigure problems. It just doesn't need to drain MPs anymore, as it regenerates them itself - it may want to do so, though. The only major disadvantage I can see in such a situation is that a creature with POW is limited to a max MPs of POW x 2, while a POWless vampire has no limit on its MPS. But the fun of the situation comes in the roleplaying possibilities - - the vampire and sorcerer are now locked in a close relationship (they can mentally communicate with each other to some extent, for example), and the roleplaying possibilties of that are great. >Surely it is the fact that the vampire is an incomplete creature which >gives it many of its special abilities? There is a bit more to being a vampire than just being a human without POW. I don't see why borrowing some POW from a sorcerer should make it lose most of its abilities - on the contrary, I think it keeps the majority of powers and disadvantages. Does an animal lose any of its abilities just because a sorcerer makes it intelligent temporarily? >And for those who use Vivamort-style vampires, not drinking blood would >probably be a breach of cult strictures, meaning visits from cult spirits, >etc. > Sure. I think the complications from a roleplaying point of view are immense, especially for your average Vivamort cultist. But then again, a vampire that would be interested in such an arrangement is unlikely to be average. >And can you see the conversations at the Greydog Inn? > [humourous conversation deleted] Aah, but imagine it in the Lunar Heartlands! The dashing young sorcerer turns up at the party with his vampire companion, assuring the shocked and outraged conservatives that his companion has been healed of the worst aspects of their vampiric condition by his sorcerous arts, and no longer needs to feed on human spirits. The Lunar way urges acceptance, and tells us that chaotic beings can be healed, he proclaims. Whether this situation reflects reality is up to your campaign, but it does make an excellent picture. Cheers David Computing Officer |"Our machines are disturbingly lively, Arts Faculty UWA |and we ourselves frighteningly inert." davidc@cs.uwa.edu.au | -Donna Haraway >Microsoft, meanwhile, denies that the problem exists. ------------------------------ From: ns10005@cam.ac.uk (Nigel Smith) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 10:46:22 +0000 Subject: Re: Vampire Familiars David Cake replied to me: >>And can you see the conversations at the Greydog Inn? >> >[humourous conversation deleted] > > Aah, but imagine it in the Lunar Heartlands! The dashing young >sorcerer turns up at the party with his vampire companion, assuring the >shocked and outraged conservatives that his companion has been healed of the >worst aspects of their vampiric condition by his sorcerous arts, and no >longer needs to feed on human spirits. The Lunar way urges acceptance, and >tells us that chaotic beings can be healed, he proclaims. Whether this >situation reflects reality is up to your campaign, but it does make an >excellent picture. The role-playing aspect is the only part which would make me, as a GM, rule in favour of the idea. Your idea, above, makes it worthwhile on its own. The only time I could see this actually cropping up is if someone was involuntarily turned into a vampire and wished to return to a more normal state. Imagine it as a twist on a Romeo-&-Juliet style scenario. In this case I would think that the 'vampire' would do all it could to avoid its heritage, not using its special abilities, while other vampires would continue goading, tempting and threatening the poor creature in an attempt to woe it back to the family. This has definite possibilities... Thanks guys! Nigel ------------------------------ From: "Stian A. Fagereng" Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 14:03:30 MEZ-1MDZ Subject: 2h as 1h would you allow this in your campaign ?? and with what penalties. Thinking of a great sword. The character got 17 i str. *************************************** * e-mail sko@cyber.hibo.no * *************************************** ------------------------------ From: jahendricks@vassar.edu (Jason D. Hendricks) Date: Tue, 06 Feb 1996 10:20:32 -0500 Subject: Re: 2h as 1h In my various campaigns, I have run across this before. The example in my case was a 17 Str, 18 Siz barbarian who insisted that he would be able to use a greatsword in one hand. Hmm. Well...perhaps someone of that size and strength could HOLD the sword comfortably, but insofar as being remotely effective in combat - it's pretty darn unlikely. Imagine a strong character, six feet tall...attempting to swing an object 5-6' in length (zweihanders can be longer) which the weight is mostly concentrated on the tip and blade to gain momentum... I'm not saying that it is impossible...only unlikely. One of the problems with allowing 2-handed weapons to be used with one hand is that it opens the door to rules rapists. "Hey...If I can use a 2 handed sword in one hand, why can't I use 2?"...The solution I have found is that the Str/Dex requirements should be cumulative...For instance if your character is holding a Str/Dex sword of 11/9...and wants to use another identical sword with no penalties, he would need stats of 22/18...incredibly high indeed. This is one of the reasons why in RL, paired weapons were comparitively light. (Consider the daisho, for instance. Or paired sai's) To finally answer the question however...;-) I would say no to 1-handed use of a 2-handed weapon, unless you preface it with the fact that he can't use another weapon in his free hand...otherwise Grak the barbarian will be walking around with 2 3d6 weapons...unless you are comfortable with that power level...in which case you should be playing a runelord campaign... ------------------------------ From: bernuetz.oliver@ic.gc.ca (Bernuetz, Oliver: WPG) Date: Tue, 06 Feb 1996 11:44:53 -0500 Subject: RE: 2h as 1h >would you allow this in your campaign ?? and with what >penalties. >Thinking of a great sword. >The character got 17 i str. I wouldn't allow a normal human to wield a two handed weapon even if they did have a 17 STR. As a rule of thumb I'd want their STR to be 10 higher than the minimum required to use the weapon two-handed. Using a 2h weapon one handed is the mark of a hero. It's more a matter of being big enough to do it than strong enough I would imagine. I did notice though in the River of Cradles supplement that the Agrimori switched from being pike wielding hunter-gatherers (a mind-boggling inconsistency for those from an anthropological background) to heavy peltasts. They do wield 2h long spears one handed. But then they are the men and a half. Oliver D. Bernuetz bernuetz.oliver@ic.gc.ca ------------------------------ From: martin <102541.3423@compuserve.com> Date: 06 Feb 96 12:41:05 EST Subject: Realism at higher levels I wrote: >>>if the system functioned well enough to give >>>powerful characters the motivations and roleplaying cues that would >>>facilitate >>>the play, then there wouldn't have to be this fear of tough characters. David Dunham wrote: >>It has nothing to do with the game system, it has to do with realism. ME: >you say there is nothing wrong with the game system at >higher levels David: >No, I said my objection to rapid advancement to high level stems from >realism, not the rules. (The rules probably can't handle it, but since I >aim for a more realistic campaign, that doesn't bother me much.) What, in Glorantha, is realistic? After all you've got heros wandering around and I'm not just talking about the big names, there has to be many with hero powers and powerful abilities eg Hofstaring Treeleaper frex. These people exist in Glorantha in relatively large numbers. As for PCs rising so high, I'd say it was fairly realistic that it happens within a five-ten year period depending on how much action they get into. These are the Hero Wars and I remember being inspired by the section in the RQ2 rulebook which said that everything your players do readys them for the great conflict just a bit better. I took that fairly literally to mean that the whole point of RQ is to become a hero. I'm not saying that it is likely or easy but thats the direction to push for. >Obviously, it would be nice if the rules *could* handle tough combat >characters better, and there have been some proposals which could help, >notably the different ideas of more interesting results from Special >attacks. Personally I have no difficulty in handling tough characters. It seems to me that the main objection from many GMs is that the PCs are now untouchable by trollkin or the local militia. This is exactly as it should be. Why be a Rune Level if any part time warrior can push you around? Rune Levels should be awesome as they are tied to their god in a way 99% of Gloranthans are not. I still find the parry reduction rule mixed with defence, dodge and magic makeseven tough characters highly vulnerable to the correct application of force. me: >>As I said, I find the week recuperation thing to be a bit of a rules construct >>and therefore too obviously unrealistic. >So why is a week a rules construct and a day isn't? Why not roll for checks >after each check? The whole concept is a rules construct. If you were being >realistic, you'd probably want a failure followed by a success (at the >skill itself) in order to learn something, indicating that you'd seen how >to correct your initial mistake. Agreed but I allow characters to roll whenever there is a convenient moment, that can take a while. Personally I'd like to see some sort of rule for including skill checks for failures as we all learn by our mistakes, often more than our sucesses. Martin Laurie ------------------------------ From: "Stian A. Fagereng" Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 18:17:27 MEZ-1MDZ Subject: RE: 2h as 1h *one handed is the mark of a hero. It's more a matter of being big enough to the character is size 9 .-) *************************************** * e-mail sko@cyber.hibo.no * *************************************** ------------------------------ From: bernuetz.oliver@ic.gc.ca (Bernuetz, Oliver: WPG) Date: Tue, 06 Feb 1996 13:48:42 -0500 Subject: RE: 2h as 1h How the heck does he carry the damn thing?:-> the character is size 9 .-) Oliver D. Bernuetz bernuetz.oliver@ic.gc.ca ------------------------------ From: nam@grendal.rain.com (Nicholas Marcelja) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 96 18:27:33 PST Subject: Re: 2h as 1h Well, I have tried using a 2 handed sword (6 foot) with one hand. I am 6'4" and weigh 320 pounds. Some consider me strong... (not me) I can swing it about 3 times before the opponent figures out the swing is soooo long and jumps in .. As a desperation move, yes.. as standard procedure no way. Nicholas Marcelja pacifier.com!grendal!nam nam@grendal.rain.com Genie : N.Marcelja marcelja@sharpwa.com Compuserve : 76056,753 ------------------------------ End of RQ Rules Digest: V2 #178 ******************************* 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