From: owner-rq-rules-digest To: rq-rules-digest@hops.wharton.upenn.edu Subject: RQ Rules Digest: V3 #43 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, 27 August 1996 Volume 03 : Number 043 TABLE OF CONTENTS Martin Declan Kelly Gloranthan Manifestation Robert McArthur Australian Web Site SPerrin@aol.com sanity Nicholas Marcelja Immobile targets Simon D. Hibbs POW and enchantments Simon D. Hibbs Possible future direction for RQers. Alain RAMEAU Boosting Spells Mark Gagnon RQ Rules Digest: V3 #42 Alain RAMEAU Re:Glorantha David Dunham rules & worlds 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: Martin Declan Kelly Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 20:59:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: Gloranthan Manifestation At 03:00 PM 8/26/96 -0400, you wrote: >Regarding the Chaosium actions, Steve Perrinm said: > >>This is Steve back again to say it looks like RuneQuest definitely has to >>find a new world. I, for one, am not necessarily unhappy about this. > Does anyone have a copy of the original post? Musta missed it... if you do, I'd appreciate a copy (privately) Martin - -- 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: Robert McArthur Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 14:15:45 +1000 (EST) Subject: Australian Web Site Hi everyone. My Web site (searchable archives of the various old and new lists) has been down for some time now. Apologies to all. It now seems that it *may* be up again in the near future. If not, David Cake has indicated interest in providing the service so all won't be lost. Robert McArthur The archive was at: http://www.icis.qut.edu.au/~mcarthur/rpg ------------------------------ From: SPerrin@aol.com Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 00:34:01 -0400 Subject: Re: sanity In a message dated 96-08-26 20:03:41 EDT, you write: >From: wstrad@tenet.edu (Brad Stradley) >> >All of your ideas about POW drain have been so helpful. So now I shall >put another idea into the air. I have long considered putting COC SAN >stat and the other stuff that goes along with it into a RQ game. Ideas >anyone? >ttfn, >Brad > For my Carcasona campaign I am having the players make SAN rolls (based on anything from POWx6 to POWx3, depending on how mind-bending the event) and using the CoC tables when they blow it. However, I am not keeping track of SAN points and do not intend to. The temporary (some not so temporary ) effects are quite enough, thank you. Steve Perrin ------------------------------ From: nam@grendal.rain.com (Nicholas Marcelja) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 96 21:35:02 PST Subject: Re: Immobile targets :I used to train fighters in the Society for Creative Anachronism, and I :must disagree with Kevin. A stationary target is exceptionally easy to :hit, and even very untalented novices can hit one almost every time. :What _is_ hard for even a good novice is to hit a target that moves :around, trying not to be hit. Since no one stands stock still in a :fight, it's one's chance to hit a mobile target that is important. : :Also, novices do not necessarily hit weakly. True, their sword arm :muscles might not be developed, but neither is their judgment of what :constitutes sufficient force. They often use extra force just to be sure :of doing damage. In a real fight, this would be fatiguing and :inefficient, but they haven't learned this yet. I wouldn't risk _my_ arm :to a novice's sword blow, thank you. : :Ed Tonry I also train fighters in the SCA. The biggest problem is to get the new fighter to HIT someone. Most are too afraid of hurting the target. Not a problem in a "real" situation. Also the sword has to hit correctly. even a slight off angle with twist the blade out of your hand. The "sweet spot" must be used. if the sword hits off the sweet spot, again it will twist inthe hands. Yes some novices will hit HARD. Most of these already have some sort of combat training. I have novice fighters hit my shield even when I make NO attmept to block. I would not risk my arm either to a new fighets swings... Nicholas Marcelja (Master at Arms Nicolai Grendal Gornych, An-Tir) pacifier.com!grendal!nam nam@grendal.rain.com Genie : N.Marcelja marcelja@sharpwa.com Compuserve : 76056,753 ------------------------------ From: "Simon D. Hibbs" Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 11:15:23 +0100 (BST) Subject: POW and enchantments Andrew O. Mellinger sugests that multi-participant rituals should be fairly common and are a realistic addition to Glorantha (or any game world, I suppose) : > First of all, rules can be made to do anything realistic, consistent, or >otherwise. My purpose in the Enchantments and POW thread is not to >determine how the rules would encourage or forbid such things but why, >from a cultural /gloranthan mechanics perspective, it would/would not >come about. I fully agree that the primary objective of a rules system is to serve as a vehicle for exploring a world. The rules serve the game, not the other way around. For example, my objection to enchanters using other peoples POW are as follows. Note I am trying to summarise my ideas on this, so I am not just answering your point. I hope this to be my final statement on this, the thread has just about run it's course in it's current incarnation : 1) The only other case where one entity uses another's POW directly (I don't consider Tap to do this) is in Divine Magic. Personaly I don't consider enchanters to be on the same scale as gods. 2) Ignoring game mechanics for a moment : An enchanter creates magic items bey a concious expenditure of will power/soul power. How can a magician access someone else's soul? How can I 'the enchanter' sacrifice a portion of 'your' soul to create a magical effect? Surely you have to do that yourself? 3) Going back to the rules. I am convinced that enchantments created by priests are created by them alone. Ok, they gain the enchantment spell from their god, but the fact that the success or failiure of the enchantment process is determined by their own personal skill at enchanting clinches the argument, IMHO. To be very rules lawyerish, there is nothing in the rules that says a sorcerer could not teach the Enchant skill to a priest, so they must be doing very similar things. 4) There is no reason why several enchanters should not each add to a single enchantment. BUT each uses their own POW and their own enchanting skill. 5) The most powerfull spells that currently even approach the power of this effect are Mindlink (2 pt divine) and Tap. Mindlink only allows the sharing of MPs and Tap drains POW but only gives the Tapper MPs in return. Allowing the enormously more powerfull effect of sharing POW, without considerably more powerfull magics than these, is absurd IMHO. Purely from the point of view of being consistent with these spells, a POW sharing divine spell should be at least 3 points, and probably strictly one-use as well. Even then I would not allow it in my campaign for the rasons stated in (1) and (2). 6) Group Rituals : There are several examples of these in Glorantha. For example, the Magasta divine spell Call Monster (I think that's the name). In this spell, each participant must know and cast the spell, but the MPs they sacrifice are totaled and all contribute to the effect. IMHO this basic mechanism covers 90% of group rituals in Glorantha, many of which are realy just souped-up Mindlinks. A similar basic mechanic is used for worship ceremonies too. You could view the POW point sacrificed on initiation as setting up the 'spell' that initiates use to channel the MPs they sacrifice during worship. > If it will work, what cultural factors keep it from being widespread and >changing the face of Glorantha? I, like Sandy, would rather not see >mass-produced items in Glorantha, but I don't buy a "It's not in the >rules" solution. I don't think there are any cultural factors preventing group magic, in fact there are plenty that encourage it, see the examples in (6) above. I don't think sacrificing POW between characters is in the rules because that is a god like ability, and only the gods can accept direct sacrifices of this nature. I think sharing POW like that is no more sensible than sharing DEX. "Hey bob, mind if I borrow 5 points of your DEX while I climb this wall?". I think that just about wraps up my opinion on the subject. Anyone else is welcome to disagree. I think my opinion is amply supported by the rules as they stand. What is more important, I think they are a sensible interpretation of how 'the world' works, without wrecking the ballance of power or having to invoke arbitrary GM fiat (i.e. people don't do it because I SAY SO...). On the subject of the commonality of enchantments : In my games most of the PCs with magical skills come from families where this was a tradition. As a result of this they tend to start off with a few heirloom artefacts - perhaps an MPME and some spell matrices. These could be gifts from relatives, or badges of office. In fact enchantments would probably be fairly common, simply as a result of the rules as they stand. Simon Hibbs ------------------------------ From: "Simon D. Hibbs" Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 13:55:46 +0100 (BST) Subject: Possible future direction for RQers. Steve Perrin says : >This is Steve back again to say it looks like RuneQuest definitely has to >find a new world. I, for one, am not necessarily unhappy about this. So far as I am concerned, the latest version of RuneQuest to be published is Chaosium's Elric roleplaying game. If RQ is independent of Glorantha, then Avalon Hill's 'official' RQ is no more definitive than the version of the BRP game mechanics found in Elric. The main difference, of course, is the magic system. Yet Elric does have a very close analogue of spirit magic and the Bronze Grimoir contains a host of excelent magic rules and ideas. My contention is that magic is prety fundamental to the design of a fantasy campaign world, so if you are serious about RQ becoming a generic roleplaying game for Swords and Sorcery, we should not tie ourselves too closely to a particular set of magic rules. Thus Elric becomes a viable contender to the RQ throne. Of course, Elric is perfectly compatible with RQ magic as it stands, only needing minor revisions to the turn sequence due to the lack of strike ranks. Basicaly Elric just uses DEX ranks instead. Also, Elric does not use hit locations, so I have had to design variants of the Palsy spell and others to account for this. All these are very minor. I wrote the bulk of the revisions necessery for my Glorantha campaign in a few hours. They take up about 4 pages of A4. Not only is Ellric in print, it is also being actively supported by Chaosium. They recently published 'Sailing on the Seas of Fate', a maritime suplements which expands on the RQ sailing rules (which orriginated with the old Stormbringer game anyway). Sure, it is written as a Young Kingdoms supplement, but about 2/3 of it is directly liftable into another setting and the rest can be adapted. I would love to make the stuff I have got, including several scenarios with Elric/RQ stats, up for grabs. If I had a web page I would put it there. Alternatively I would like to be able to put it on the Chaosium Digest, but again that does not take RQ material. I could adapt the scenario stats to RQ or Elric, but that would either lose the Gloranthan flavour, or force me to work out all those niggly SRs and hit locations that I chose the Elric rules in order to avoid in the first place! I suppose there are enough rules variants for Glorantha out there already anyway, all worthy efforts too : Goonquest, Bodgers, Pendragon Pass, YAHQS, Sandy's sorcery variant, and probably some I have not seen yet. But Elric is a living game, in print. If you want a generic Swords and Sorcery BRP system, RQ and Elric are the only options. IMHO Elric is the one to go with. If anyone with a web page is interested in looking at the stuff I have got, you are welcome. I have it in MS Word format and prefer that as it keeps the formatting, but I can send it as text if you like. I am developing the habit of writing up the adventures that I run in abreviated scenario format, so the amount of material I have is slowly expanding. Ok, blatant advertisement over. I'm not realy fanatical about this - honest. Well, maybe slightly. I realy wanted G:TG to be based on Elric, not Pendragon. Oh well... Simon Hibbs ------------------------------ From: Alain_RAMEAU@total.fr (Alain RAMEAU) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 16:05:19 +0200 Subject: Boosting Spells I have concerns with the system for boosting spells, because IMO, it implies that the defender will always loose. Why ? Because there is no real limit (except available Magic Points) to such boosting, while, on the other hand, the defender cannot boost his protective spell and can only rely on a high level spell (which, in my campaign, is difficult to obtain : nobody can easily obtain a Countermagic-7 or more). Even a countermagic-10 is not very efficient because a boosted befuddle can still overcome that spell ! I do not think that a solution could be to allow boosting also for defensive spells (otherwise only a Countermagic-1 should be necessary to learn), and the spirit magic system would become quickly a alternative sorcery system. One radical solution could be forbiding the possibility of boosting a spell. That way, it would really be usefull to have countermagic-6 for the defender, or dispell magic-6 for the attacker (before being able to cast his befuddle !) but would give sorcerers some advantage with their manipulable spells. Other solutions could be to allow boosting only through magic cristals special abilities, or may be with the creation of a special variable magic spell (Boost ? but how would it work ?), ... Any ideas how to handle this problem (which may be not a problem for others ?) Thanks, Alain. ------------------------------ From: Mark Gagnon Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 10:25:27 PDT Subject: Re: RQ Rules Digest: V3 #42 LURK MODE OFF >>Chaosium Inc. has lined up the talented Phil and Marion Anderson to >>edit the Gloranthan Fiction line. There will be a group of Gloranthan >>advisors to help in manuscript selection and creation. >>Chaosium Inc. has commissioned David Hall, editor of Tales of the >>Reaching Moon, to produce a new Gloranthan Role Playing Game. It will >>be based upon Pendragon mechanics and Greg Stafford's notes. It is >>intended to be very flexible and able to handle everything from >>microcampaigning to heroquesting. Simple mechanics and extensive use >>of runes for the magic system will make the game accessible to all. And about bloody time too! I've been waiting (and I'm sure everyone else has as well) for months for any news at all re: RQ4 or RQ:AiG or anything that even remotely resembles a new edition of RQ... And now it looks like its actually going to be an alternative version of Pendragon... Oh, well... LURK MODE ON Mark Gagnon =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Mark Gagnon Each night Father fills me with dread When he sits on the foot of my bed; I'd not mind that he speaks in gibbers and squeaks, But for seventeen years he's been dead. --Edward Gorey ------------------------------ From: Alain_RAMEAU@total.fr (Alain RAMEAU) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 16:25:41 +0200 Subject: Re:Glorantha >From: Eric Rowe Subject: Announcement: >Gloranthan Resurrection System: Glorantha > > >Chaosium Inc. has commissioned David Hall, editor of Tales of the >Reaching Moon, to produce a new Gloranthan Role Playing Game. It will >be based upon Pendragon mechanics and Greg Stafford's notes. It is >intended to be very flexible and able to handle everything from >microcampaigning to heroquesting. Simple mechanics and extensive use >of runes for the magic system will make the game accessible to all. > As I understand, the RQ:AIG new system is definitely abandonned ? I think I saw somes basics of the Pendragon-adapted system mentionned above, in Tales of the Reaching Moon (or may be here too ?) and some mechanics seemed interesting. However, I was more excited with the RQ:AIG one (even if I have only basic principles of same, not a full copy)! If Avalon Hill/Chaosium decides to abandon the RQ:AIG system, could it be possible for them to waive their rights on such system and authorize the RQ:AIG authors to provide people interested with a copy of this system ? Alain ------------------------------ From: David Dunham Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 09:27:59 -0700 Subject: Re: rules & worlds > This is Steve back again to say it looks like RuneQuest definitely has to > find a new world. I, for one, am not necessarily unhappy about this. I'm not familiar with the latest news, but a new RQ world sounded definite when I last talked to Oliver Jovanovic (who six months ago was still planning on RQ4). "cromlech" wrote > I dislike this tripe why not just make the minatures and good scenarios >and source books > there is no need to change the system RQ works fine It just a ploy to >make ppl to buy > more big expensive rule books. Just as RQ can be used to run worlds other than Glorantha, it can still be used to run Glorantha, even if there's a new game out. And I'll bet if you want to run Glorantha, you'll be able to make use of lots of the new source books. There's a chance that some of them will have no game mechanics at all (at least, Greg Stafford has talked about that in the past, I have no knowledge of the detailed plans). Brad Stradley wondered > I would like to know where one could locate a copy of RQ:AIG or RQ4. You shouldn't be able to. Both are copyrighted works which the author doesn't want distributed. David Dunham Glorantha/RQ page: Imagination is more important than knowledge. -- Albert Einstein ------------------------------ End of RQ Rules Digest: V3 #43 ****************************** 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