From: owner-rq-rules-digest To: rq-rules-digest@hops.wharton.upenn.edu Subject: RQ Rules Digest: V3 #33 Reply-To: rq-rules Errors-To: owner-rq-rules-digest Precedence: bulk Content-Return: Prohibited Return-Path: owner-rq-rules-digest RQ Rules Digest: Monday, 19 August 1996 Volume 03 : Number 033 TABLE OF CONTENTS Jim Bickmeyer Befuddled over Befuddled Martin Declan Kelly Allied Spirit Perception David Bailey Criticals David Boatright RQ Rules Digest: V3 #28 owner-rq-rules@hops.wharton. HELP Alain RAMEAU Increasing characteristics with skills Sandy Petersen Rune Lords Sandy Petersen Enchantments / Befuddle SimonPhipp@aol.com Banning/Befuddle Jesper Wahrner Befuddle 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: "Jim Bickmeyer" Date: Mon, 19 Aug 96 04:25:39 UT Subject: Befuddled over Befuddled Simon said that Befuddle is too gross for a 2pt spell. OK, that maybe so. My solution is to make it a variable point spell. At one point the character is dazed. They stop what they are doing but still have full defense and must make a concentration roll of INTx5 to attack to attack at ¾% or make deceive actions. They get plus 10% to shake the effects. At two points the character is stunned. As dazed but all attacks are at ½ chance and they can not cast offense magic. Concentration roll is Intx4 and plus 5% to shake the effects. At three points the character is befuddled. They can defend and cast defense spells on themselves as well as healing. Concentration roll of INTx2 to make attacks ½% or deceive actions Normal chance to shake the effects At four points the character can make no (None, Nota, zero) attacks or decisive actions. They can defend at ½% chance. At five points the character is totally befuddled. They can only do one action, try and shake the effects of the spell. Does that look like a reasonable solution to befuddle with out making it another Demoralize spell? At this point I would like to relate what happened to a PC that was befuddled and how I ran the roll playing end of the spell. The character was a Luner in Pavis wandering the streets at a time when all good Luners were behind closed doors. A four of punks started to follow him on his trek through the streets. When he turned to confront them one managed to get him with a befuddle spell. The player was unsuccessful at his initial attempt to shake the spell effects. GM: Tarun you can't seem to understand why these kids are hooting and yelling at you. PC: I try to shake the effects of the Befuddle, and try to figure out what they are doing. I missed the roll. GM: One is in front of you now and pushes you. You hit a wall behind you with enough force to hurt your head and back. Your attention is now on why the wall hurt you. PC: Well, I'll elbow jab the wall to pay it back. GM: Ouch no the wall hurt you elbow. PC: Damn wall, I turn to look at the wall. Can I attack it? GM: No, you really can only be confused and try to shake the effects, Roll to shake the spell. PC: No. Not yet. OK I will study the wall and try to determine why it hurt me. GM: That heavy weight in your right hand? PC: You mean by sword? GM: Yea. Some kind person is trying to help you by relieving your burden so you can study the wall better. Maybe you should let them. PC: Fine, Fine. I'll just stand here looking at the wall. At that point the would be thief got the sword free. However, the sword had a condition that it would cast a disruption spell on any non-Luner that tried to hold it. When the NPC got "bit" by the foul Luner's sword he dropped it. The PC made his roll over his INT and shook the effects of the spell. The Luner PC manage to hold off the four assailants until the city patrol arrived. ------------------------------ From: Martin Declan Kelly Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1996 22:25:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Allied Spirit Perception What's the official status on disembodied Allied Spirits placed into objects... can they leave that object? What happens if the object is broken? In addition, perception... reading an old RuneQuestions, it mentions that if an allied spirit is in MindLink with it's holder, it can see from it's eyes... and that it can also cast second sight, soul sight or whatever.. how about hearing etc.. was anything ever ruled about this? What about Targeting Spells? Declan - -- We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars... - Oscar Wilde o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o Martin Declan Kelly Teleport Internet Services Senior Tech Support My view and opinions are my own; go get your own http://www.teleport.com/~declan/ o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o ------------------------------ From: David Bailey Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 08:59:10 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Criticals I must start this msg with saying that I'm an old duffer who still plays RQII but still the game's the same and even if we have our own world RQ is RQ. The questions is this- Has anybody developed any alternative Critical, Impale, Slash or Crush rules? My thoughts run along the following lines. 1) Crushes aren't functional under RQII since you have to have a Damage Bonus. 2) One of the redeeming features of Rolemaster is the depth and flavour generated by the criticals. 3) We have a table for fumbles. 4) Weapons break to often to be practical. 5) Therefore why not create some critical tables for weapon groups for both attack and parry. Parry results would include the likes of 'breaks opponents weapon' assuming this was feasable and 'jars attackers weapon arm preventing attack next round'. This could interact with attack criticals saying 'if parried then...' leading to both weapons being broken etc. Clearly the problem is that I don't want to get bogged down with 10,000 tables like rolemaster. Do you have, Ideas, Comments, Experience, work in this area? Dave. ps. This probably won't be of any use to you RQIII people but we have a fully functional Sorcery system that allows spell stacking, % based, portable to any world, fits on one page and doesn't require acres of spell descriptions (not quite true). E-Mail me if you want a look see at db@uk.hboc.com. ------------------------------ From: "David Boatright" Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 21:38:38 +0000 Subject: Re: RQ Rules Digest: V3 #28 From: Jukka Alanen >A character has the same weapon skill in all the weapons in one=20 >weapon category, right? So he should be as skilled in broadsword as in >bastard sword? But why then, for example, in Barbarian Belt a >starting= =20 character gets for his cultural weapons : broadsword or >.battle axe 30 ? By the way, if you have the same skill in both the >swords, why would anyone= =20 want to use broad sword instead of >bastard sword? It shows what weapons the culture uses without having to print another table. Glenn Glazer =========== >How is it easy, every 100 hundred hours the character gets 10 hours >to put to reasearch of a related skill. They still have to make the >normal research roll as well. This seems a lot better than hordes of >PC adventurers down at the gym wearing leotards doing step aeorbics. I run a culture based campaign. Players allocate time each season to activites such as work, training socilaizing etc. Work hours will allow you to put research hours to related skills or characteristics. training is a completely seperate activity. >What I meant, is that it is a two-for-one. RQ rules are very specific >.about how characters can use their time, particularly as they become >initiates and priests. With this economy in mind, I would rather see >people training for one thing or the other, not both at once. What do you mean quite specific I find it rather vague about what people do when not beating up monsters. - ----------------------------------------------------------- Better Dead than Red RQ RIP - ----------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ From: owner-rq-rules@hops.wharton.upenn.edu Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 15:59:27 -0900 (PDT) Subject: HELP HELP I recently downloaded Sandy's sorcery and RQ in Tekumel rules as .pdf files and am having no luck reading them. If any one out there can aid me in this I would greatly appreciate it. Mark Groff Harry Browne - Libertarian for President ------------------------------ From: Alain_RAMEAU@total.fr (Alain RAMEAU) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 17:58:53 +0200 Subject: Increasing characteristics with skills Hartley Patterson wrote >I see no reason why it shouldn't work with RQ, adding to the Primary >Characteristic for the skill. Considerable extra bookkeeping though! >Let's call them Improvement Points (IP) and to avoid fractions award >an IP every time a skill reaches or passes a 5% increment. Add this >to an 'IP' line on your character sheet parallel to the >Characteristics line, and when IP reaches say 100 up goes the >Characteristic. This then feeds back via the Bonus to all similar >skills. The idea seems interesting. However, to simplify the mechanism, I propose the following system : Each time a skill (net of any bonus) reaches a 25% level (25%, 50%, 75%, 100%, ...), the character is entitled an increase check roll in the primary charcteristic(s) of the skill category. Each time a skill (net of any bonus) reaches a 50% level (50%, 100%, ...), the character is entitled an increase check roll in the secondary characteristic(s) of the skill category. Obviously, no roll is entitled if that primary or secondary characteristic is "non increasable", or has reached its maximum, (or for POWER ?). Alain. ------------------------------ From: Sandy Petersen Date: Mon, 19 Aug 96 11:18:40 -0500 Subject: Re: Rune Lords Brad Stradley >I am a little confused. I can find three brands of magic in RQ. >There is refrence to Runelords but not much of a defintion. Then >there is the occasional refrence to Runemagic. What is Rune Magic >and what are Rune Lords? What seperates them from anything else? A "Rune Lord", in current parlance, is a cult leader whose powers are mainly manifested in skills, rather than in magic. Rune Lords are almost invariably combat-oriented as well. Quite often, a Rune Lord receives a special type of Divine Intervention (rolls 1d10 instead of 1d100). Some cults have both Rune Lords and Rune Priests (Yelmalio, Orlanth, Krarsht), some only have priests (Ernalda, Issaries, Godunya), and some have only Rune Lords (Storm Bull, Yelorna, Waha). Quite often, a Rune Lord is not named a "Rune Lord", but something else. Thus, a leader of the Humakt cult is a "Sword". A leader of Zorak Zoran is a "Death Lord". a Krarsht assassin is a "Jaw"; but all are varieties of Rune Lord. There is not really a close equivalent to Rune Lord in earthly sects. Perhaps the priest-knights of the Templars or Hospitalers come closest. In original Runequest, everyone belonged to a cult, and every cult had both Rune Priests and Rune Lords. In Cults of Prax, frex, there were Rune Lords for cults in which the idea was absurd, like Daka Fal, Lhankor Mhy, Chalana Arroy. Rune Magic is Divine Magic -- it comes from the gods, or Runes. A Rune Lord is a master of the cult, and hence master of his cult's Runes. A Rune Priest is any priest of a cult. Sandy P. ------------------------------ From: Sandy Petersen Date: Mon, 19 Aug 96 12:19:53 -0500 Subject: Re: Enchantments / Befuddle re: using other folk's POW in creating enchantments Simon Phipp >The argument that it is too gross is spurious. There should be no >rule which is banned because it can create powerful effects. Simon. You know this is nonsense. In the same exact post, you say: "The description of Befuddle is far too powerful in RQ3." What is this but a direct negation of your earlier statement. General Essay on the subject follows (the use of the word "You" in this is not aimed at Simon -- I just like using the second person in my more didactic writings). Of course a rule can be banned because it creates powerful effects IF such effects are harmful to the game world or campaign. What other possible reason is there to bar a rule? Realism, maybe. As an example, imagine changing the Tap spell so that there was no limit to how high it sent your MPs (instead of being topped off at twice your POW). No gamemaster worth his salt would let his PCs within a mile of such a spell. On the other hand, a GM might well institute a character in his campaign with this power (perhaps as villain, perhaps not) -- but having it generally available would lead to difficulties. Yet it is less problematic than vicarious POW sacrifice. Vicarious POW sacrifice leads, most obviously, to magic items being both numerous and cheap. Everybody, down to a lowly peasant, would have several -- I mean, I'd have one made for myself from my own POW, my wife would have one, I'd have inherited one or two from my grandparents, and my dad, etc. etc. Such a plethora of enchanted objects would utterly transform any game world. The world would have to be planned from the very start to be filled with such items. If it _were_ so planned, then it would probably work out fine. But putting such a power into a world that had already been designed would be Wrong. If you instituted a rule that such items can only be used by the person who sacked the POW, this would just cause new problems. First, you'd still have at least one item per person. More, for older folks. Second, and more importantly, players could no longer acquire magic items through adventuring or purchase. Nobody, or at least very few, would create magic items by the old-fashioned route. So it would be a rare item indeed which was usable by other than the owner. Befuddle >I think that a 2 point spirit magic spell which stops the target >from attacking, parrying or dodging for 5 minutes is far too gross. As it happens, this is NOT what Befuddle does, in either RQIII or RQII. In RQII, befuddlement basically allows you one free hit, after which it vanishes. In RQIII, befuddlement has about a 35% chance of vanishing at the start of each and every round, depending on the target's INT. You cast it in round 1. At the _start_ of round 2 (before you've had a chance to follow up), the Befuddlement may well end. Befuddlement for a typical human lasts two (2) combat rounds on the average, and has a 92% chance of being over by the end of 6 rounds. This is no 5-minute spell. It is one of the shortest-duration spells available. Now, higher-INT targets have a cruddier chance of shaking off the Befuddlement, but these targets also have a better chance of being protected with high POW, or defensive magic. Me: > The way I see it, most folks, even rich folks, don't spend all > their time fighting, so other types of items would be more common > than, say, magic swords. Hasni Mubarak >Examples? Please? Purty please? Okay. Copper stoves that automatically cast Ignite when filled with wood and the door closed. Light-emitting hats for night work. Gnomes for plowing fields quick and easy. Protection 1 spells at sheep-shearing time (keeps the sheep from being cut by the scissors). Detect Sheep on your shepherds' staff, so you can find lost lambs. Phantom Sound items for multiplying sound volume -- handy both for entertainers and public speakers. Haste enchantments on a horse's harness. Fatigue-restoring enchantments on tool handles. Bludgeoned hammers, for smiths to work more easily. Tiny teleport circles for sending small parcels and letters back and forth between distant cities. Insect-repelling stones you hang from the ceiling of your bedroom. Locked strongboxes that open only for the owner. Girdles that cure impotence. Disease-preventative jewelry. Drunkenness-enhancing beer mugs. Anti-hangover rings. The Rain Gong (pound it and it rains -- do not overuse). Beds that permit you to rise refreshed after only an hour or two of slumber. Artificial limbs with a sense of touch. Aphrodisiac earrings. Wagon Wheels and Axles of Regeneration (when damaged, they fix themselves). Talking books. Purses that squeak or call out when touched by pickpockets. Seven-league boots. Musical instruments that play themselves. I could go on forever. Sandy P. ------------------------------ From: SimonPhipp@aol.com Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 18:01:38 -0400 Subject: Banning/Befuddle David Dunham replied to my comments about Befuddle: >> I think that a 2 point spirit magic spell which stops the target from >> attacking, parrying or dodging for 5 minutes is far too gross. > >Um, no such rule should be banned. Ha, ha. What I meant is that a 2 point spell is far too gross, but perhaps a highjer pointage spell might be appropriate or even a Rune Spell rather than a Spirit Spell. I would never ban the spell, but I would have no hesitation in rewriting it for game balance. In fact, I allow all spells in our campaign. When the players found out, just after they gained a sorcerre as part of the party, that I allowed Project Vision-type spells, having removed the existing house rules ban on Vision in RQ2, they went through a Thanatari complex without actually going into it, merely using Project Vision and finally teleporting into the Priests' quarters and surprising them at rest. It was a spectacularly successful mission, but the players agreed to a man never to use the spell again because it was "boring". Who needs to ban spells? ------------------------------ From: jewahr@hts.pp.se (Jesper Wahrner) Date: 20 Aug 96 02:20:52 +0100 Subject: Befuddle In my campaign I play Befuddle like this: When a character is befuddled he basicly becomes unable to make decisions. He still perceives the world around him but the spell muddles his mind so he has trouble figuring out the relations in what is going on. Sort of like if he can't perceive cause and effect. He retains some instincts so if he is attacked he can defend himself and fight back with whatever weapon he already has in hand. He will never initiate any action. Tactically the spell is most commonly used to better the odds by taking out a few opponents on the other side, keeping them from the battle. This makes it quite a lethal spell in RQ-combat where numerical superiority is so vital, but not so lethal as some other posters here seems to play it. Yours, Jesper - --- Blue Wave/386 v2.21 [NR] - -- -> E-mailadress: jewahr@hts.pp.se -> User at HeathTech Systems/2. ------------------------------ End of RQ Rules Digest: V3 #33 ****************************** 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