From: owner-rq-rules-digest To: rq-rules-digest@hops.wharton.upenn.edu Subject: RQ Rules Digest: V3 #56 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, 3 September 1996 Volume 03 : Number 056 TABLE OF CONTENTS Hasni Mubarak Sanity/Other Worlds Simon D. Hibbs Vicarious POW sacrifice. Frederic J-M Moulin Hoops Sandy Petersen MAGIC ECONOMICS Sandy Petersen Sanity Peter Maranci Real-World RQ David Dunham Runes & Pendragon Brad Stradley Sanity Delecti@aol.com 3 Flowers & TGC Hartley Patterson RuneQuest, Earth, Glorantha 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: Hasni Mubarak Date: Tue, 03 Sep 1996 00:14:46 -0400 Subject: Re: Sanity/Other Worlds Sandy Petersen wrote: > Note that unlike CoC, an insane character in RQ/Elric, etc. should > still be played. The madness might represent something else, such as > adherence to Chaos (in Elric). Or it can be totally ignored, which is > what most of us have been doing all along. But it can be a useful > function. For instance, Steve used it to good effect in Elfquest. > Well, not Sanity exactly, but a variant. > If you've never seen the Warhammer Fantasy RolePlay rules, take a look at how they handle sanity. Pretty much, if something horrible happens to you, theres a chance you might get a couple of points. If you see something awful, then you might get some points. Once you get six points, you make a "cool" roll, and if you fail, six points go away, and you get a little phobia type thing. They kinda imply it should be random, but I'd lean towards choosing something appropriate to the character/situation. (I.e. a character that uses alcohol to deal with stress could become an alchoholic. Or if you got a limb ripped off by a giant spider, you might fear spiders, etc.) Hasni Mubarak ------------------------------ From: "Simon D. Hibbs" Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 11:26:49 +0100 (BST) Subject: Vicarious POW sacrifice. Andrew O. Mellinger says : > Valid arguments against an invalid premise. The premise behind >multi-user ritual is that someone else besides the enchanter *sacrifices* >POW for the enchantment. The enchanter still creates the enchantment and >seals the sacrificed life-force (POW) into the item. So, there is no >'drawing', 'mugging', 'stealing', or any other sort of nonsense. We are >talking about willful, cooperative, multi-user ritual. You seem to imply that POW is like a physical raw material that one character can 'give' to another and which can then be worked on to create an enchantment. How can I give you a point of my POW? What does it look like? How heavy is it? I'm not being facecious, I just want to know how this is supposed to work. Mindlink establishes a magical link through which characters can channel MPs, but how does the exchange of POW work? How can the enchanter manipulate someone else's externalised POW without using magic? >If people don't have any good reason besides 'It doesn't fit in the >rules" then I guess I'll have to live with it. If you read my posts they >are clairifications to the question, not support of why it should happen. >I want a nice clear argument of why I couldn't walk into a ritual and put >POW into a prepared item that an enchanter was enchanting. If *you* >don't have and answer, let somebody else answer. Says he, totaly ignoring the extensive reasons given in the post he is replying to. Ok, if you disagree with my reasoning that's ok, but contemptuously saying I 'don't have and answer' is rather insulting. Sandy Petersen says : > Actually, Simon, I don't think that POW sacrificed for >initiation or Rune magic or even Divine Intervention goes to the god. >My own theory is as follows -- Fine, I did not say the god actualy gets the sacrificed POW, your theory is perfectly acceptable. My argument is that such links are only possible through Divine grace. It does weaken the premise of my argument. Presumably these links are similar to those a sorcerer establishes with apprentices? I would argue that the master/apprentice link is actualy established through their mutual worship of the Invisible God. Thus truly atheist sorcerers would not be able to perform the apprentice bonding ritual. Simon Hibbs ------------------------------ From: Frederic J-M Moulin Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 08:07:32 -0400 Subject: Hoops I accidentally let messages accumulate on the mail server to a point where it started refusing new mail. I estimated this to have occured for at least a week, but it was pointed out to me only this week-end. My apologies to whoever tried to send me a message. Please try again, I cleaned it up ;-) Since I have no way to know who could have tried, I am sending this to the list. Thanks, and have a nice gaming day, Frederic ------------------------------ From: Sandy Petersen Date: Tue, 3 Sep 96 10:03:18 -0500 Subject: Re: MAGIC ECONOMICS Me; > The final tally: 20,000 loafer salary > + 4,000 apprentice salary > + 6,000 Hall o Learning & guards > +10,000 payment for POW > +10,000 the item to be enchanted > TOTAL 50,000 pence > This is an average of 1000p per POW spent Colin Watson >my book suggests enchanted items cost at least 1500p per point of >POW, which results in a healthy profit. But you've _earned_ it. It has taken you months of time, a great deal of effort and organization. How much will you charge a purchaser for the item(s) produced? I bet more than 1000/POW. Getting your loafers is non-trivial, and I've totally breezed over the difficulties in impelling them to learn Enchant. Example: the new wave of pyramidal sales organizations are always looking for salesmen, and if you had 100 salesmen working for you in such an organization, you'd be wealthy? How practical would it be to hire 100 street people (weeding out the psychotic or stupid) and teach them the art of salesmanship for 3 intensive months? After which you could have them work for you full-time and make the $$$big$$$. Do you think it would work? I have my doubts. >My original point was that the training/living expenses which are >required to learn Enchant to a reasonable level (50%) are small >compared to the monetary return on selling enchantments. There is a risk involved. First off, whatever you were doing for a living has gone all to hell while you've been learning Enchanting. Second, you have to find someone who wants to teach you Enchant. Fourth, you have to give up part of your soul. Fifth, you have to find someone who will PAY for your magic item. This last is pretty damn crucial. Who can afford it? If no one can, you'd have to reduce your prices which kind of blows the whole idea. >after you've burned as much POW as you feel like you can earn a >healthy living teaching others how to do the same. Only if you don't bother to take economics into effect. One Enchantment instructor in a typical town probably handles all the market can bear. With two, rates would drop precipitously. Sandy P. ------------------------------ From: Sandy Petersen Date: Tue, 3 Sep 96 10:05:31 -0500 Subject: Re: Sanity Me > Har har. I challenge you to find me an important character in > any Eternal Champion stories who's not psychotic, or at the best > _extremely_ neurotic. > Brad >>This is my point. I never implied that it was NEEDED but something >>to add depth to the game. I think you misinterpreted me. I was replying to Simon P, who'd said "One argument against the use of Sanity ... is that it is not used in Stormbringer". I was just pointing that sanity and lack of same is in fact an integral part of the tales and the stories. With entire kingdoms of madmen, how else could it be? Sandy P. ------------------------------ From: Peter Maranci Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 11:24:44 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Real-World RQ * Jim Bickmeyer wrote: > Other than Greece or a Europeian for a real world FRPG. How about > ancient India. I'm talking about the time of the Rig Veda. From 5,000 > BC to 500 BC we have Deva's (Gods) influcing lives. Magic, mostly > through forms of sacrifices, was very prevelent. There was also a wide > range of cultures in India as well as influnce from outside. Why didn't *I* think of that? India is a fascinating culture, and a superior game setting. It offers more cultural and religious diversity than anywhere else I know of, and common magic would fit in it perfectly. I've wanted to run an RPG set in India for years, and am presently working on a LARP set in the Indian jungle. I don't know if it would be necessary to put the setting so very long ago; even the India of 100 years ago was a compelling setting, as Rudyard Kipling's _Kim_ showed. It would be necessary to divorce RQ India from the real world in order to free the timeline, but that shouldn't be a problem. In some ways the struggle of India to be free from the British Empire could be compared with that of Sartar and the Lunar Empire. The resolution was less violent than a Hero War, but was dramatic and morally powerful nonetheless. Another source of ideas for an RQ India setting might be Zelazny's _Lord of Light_, by the way. -->Pete - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Maranci pmaranci@tiac.net / maranci@tiac.net Malden, MA Editor, Interregnum RPG/Science Fiction APA/magazine -- email for info. Interregnum WWW home page: http://www.tiac.net/users/maranci/index.html ------------------------------ From: David Dunham Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 11:15:55 -0700 Subject: Re: Runes & Pendragon Peter Maranci wondered > Does it make sense to have RuneQuest without the Runes? That's a problem with RQ3. > will Glorantha still have Runes in the new game? Glorantha had runes before there was RuneQuest (I believe the original edition of White Bear & Red Moon had runes on the counters instead of illustrations). > It does seem to me that G:TG will be a hugely different experience > from RQ: Glorantha. I've been reading (and publishing) David Dunham's > Pendragon Pass writeups for years, and I've had the feeling that while > there are (of course) many similarities between Pendragon Pass and regular > RQ, the differences are profound. Time scale, for one thing. The scale > seems to shift towards the Pendragon mode. The years pass quickly for the > PCs, the result being that the players get to spend less time with their > characters. I'd like to hear David's comments on how (if at all) this > affects characterization. Do your players tend to take the long view? How > would you compare their connection to their PCs vis a vis RQ Glorantha > players? Don't forget that my explicit desire in my East Ralios campaign is to have a multi-generation campaign. If I wanted to run an adventuring campaign a la Pavis, time wouldn't pass as quickly. My rules would still spread out adventures a bit, since most wounds aren't fully healed magically and it takes weeks to heal back to full strength. We have a character who wants to be the best smith in the land, and who spent a considerable amount of wealth forging an iron sword which he gave to the king. I don't think this is purely rules-related, but rather campaign-related. My last RQ4 campaign lasted about one campaign year (many sessions per year). Why take the long view when you're unlikely to play more than a few years? In our local Riskland campaign, we played several campaign years (using RQ rules), and there was more of a long-term emphasis. > character traits are fine for Pendragon, but personally I'm > not sure that I'd feel comfortable with them in a long-term game. I'm > worried about free will. Certainly they're subject to abuse by bad GMing, but then just about any rule is. I believe they're *only* of use in a long-term game, because that's the only way you get enough personality checks that they can accurately reflect the way you actually run the character. David Dunham Glorantha/RQ page: Imagination is more important than knowledge. -- Albert Einstein ------------------------------ From: Brad Stradley Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 17:24:34 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: Sanity On Tue, 3 Sep 1996, Sandy Petersen wrote: > Me > > Har har. I challenge you to find me an important character in > > > any Eternal Champion stories who's not psychotic, or at the best > > > _extremely_ neurotic. > > > > > Brad > >>This is my point. I never implied that it was NEEDED but something > >>to add depth to the game. > > I think you misinterpreted me. I was replying to Simon P, > who'd said "One argument against the use of Sanity ... is that it is > > not used in Stormbringer". I was just pointing that sanity and lack > of same is in fact an integral part of the tales and the stories. > With entire kingdoms of madmen, how else could it be? > > > Sandy P. > I diden't think you wrote that in particular. Anyhow, if I offended I appologise. [grovvel] What I intended to address was the isuues that were being made rather viciously about the necesity of such. I simply wondered if anyone had used it and how did it fare. I think that insanity is great fun to play. IMO, that is what makes COC such a great game. I is a roleplayers dream. Not as much for a powergamer or wargamer. I feel that I can say that since I once had my days as being both. Speaking of which, there is a great article on the develpoment of roleplayers in Combo #20 called The Anatomy of a Gamer. I digress. I never implied that I believed that it was needed. I consider it as an optional extra, like bucket seats. In the words one of the great minds of the century... n'yuk-n'yuk-n'yuk Brad ------------------------------ From: Delecti@aol.com Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 19:41:27 -0400 Subject: Re: 3 Flowers & TGC Aloha Peter, I finally sat down and got to read through 3 Flowers and TGC. They are good, I like adventures that are left with enough room that you can insert them into a developed campaign and with some locational leeway helps also. TGC is a very good campaign start-up with the advantage of being able to develop it for the long run. 3 flowers is very good, I think a putting in the NPC's stats would be good (I think they help GM's judge the powerlevel of the intended scenario, at least what the maker used) even though I do not always use the ones provided (and I always tinker with them anyway). TGC is also very nice. I like Pavis, and the wealth of material on it makes this a great aid, especially the fact it gets weird PC's to work together (even if they have different goals, my campaigns do that alot). Absolutely a great addition to a GM just starting a new game (although it can be used in an ongoing one). An addition that I might suggest would be to give optional reasons for each of the assorted races (like the Dragonnewts). Pam Carlson and I have been talking about putting some scenarios, character stats, and other things into spaces on the net for people to use to encourage the growth of Glorantha and RQ. I was wondering if I could start it off by putting your two scenarios in a FTP site I am setting up for those banks? If so let me know. Thanks. Also a couple of things on your magazine. First, I am not sure if I asked you, but I was wondering if you have a list of which of your issues has Gloranthan and/or RQ material in it (I am working on an zine archive for Loren, and would like to list yours also). I have a bit more of a cash flow now, so I think I can now get your zine, are any back issues of those with Glorantha and/or RQ available? Also, would you mind if I put up the info about your zine at my local games stores? I am doing it for the rest of the RQ/Glorantha zines and want to be thorough. If so, could you pass me the updated cost, mailing info and a blurb giving a good idea of what it looks like. I think I have the web info, and I of course will include it, but not everyone has access to the net. Mahalo, Scott ------------------------------ From: hpttrsn@vossnet.co.uk (Hartley Patterson) Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 01:33:28 +0100 (BST) Subject: RuneQuest, Earth, Glorantha Chris Klug (V3 #54): >[....]At a guess, 2000 BC is about 14th Dynasty, >or Middle Kingdom. You'll find plenty of material at any good library. Circa 2000 BC would be interesting in Egypt: in 1986 BC Montuhotep II of Thebes (11th Dynasty) reunited the two kingdoms after a century of conflict and founded the Middle Kingdom. It lasted until 1759 BC. But nothing much was happening elsewhere. My own preference would be circa 1000 BC. - ------------- Glorantha has (IMHO) been both a curse and a blessing for the RQ rules system. On the one hand it was and is one of the most inventive and detailed secondary universes in RPG, attracting a loyal band of fans who have kept it and RQ alive. Conversely the Gloranthan tie prevented RQ from breaking out into the mass market and displacing D&D at the crucial point in time when this was possible. This is what Avalon-Hill intended with RQ3, a generic system that had both Glorantha and Fantasy Earth as 'example' universes. But it required a regular schedule of supplements on all kinds of settings and concepts, much in fact as Steve Jackson has done for GURPS. I've never GMed GURPS, but like I suspect many others I've got a few GURPS books on my shelves (Riverworld, Japan) because the settings interested me. Most of the GURPS supplements are out of print, most probably didn't make much profit, but it worked in that each one led a few more people to try the game system itself. GURPS survives when many others have died. That was the way to go. Instead of this we had the split. AH was putting out supplements but was confined to Fantasy while Chaosium was using the same basic system in other genres with Cthulu, Ringworld etc but lacked the Fantasy core. And there was no mutual support or cross-advertising: 'Your character gibbering in Arkham Sanatorium? While she waits for the men in white coats to come, why not try RUNEQUEST, same basic game system, where you can slaughter ducks and trolls without ever needing to make a SAN roll...' 'Bored with being shot at by elves, eaten by trolls, taxed by Lunars? Why not try CALL OF CTHULU, same basic game system, where you can be chased by _really_ scary monsters that will turn you into a certified raving lunatic...' - -- Hartley Patterson Home Page: http://village.vossnet.co.uk/h/hpttrsn/ featuring News from Bree, medieval economics and an elderly universe ------------------------------ End of RQ Rules Digest: V3 #56 ****************************** 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