From: owner-rq-rules-digest To: rq-rules-digest@hops.wharton.upenn.edu Subject: RQ Rules Digest: V1 #1 Reply-To: rq-rules Errors-To: owner-rq-rules-digest Precedence: bulk RQ Rules Digest: Friday, 4 November 1994 Volume 01 : Number 001 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Loren Miller Date: Thu, 3 Nov 1994 11:13:47 -0500 (EST) Subject: RQR: First Post, Trolling for Replies Hi All, The list is up and a few people are online. Sorry about the incorrect subscription information. My memory must have had a parity error when I recalled the procedure and wrote the instructions. What do you want to talk about first? 1. Why RQ:AIG failed to make it past playtest 2. Developing a complete Staff/Vessel system for Sorcery 3. Format of RQ4 (omnibook etc, I missed Joe's first post on this) 4. House rules 5. This mailing list, or the rq-playtest list Huh? - -- Loren Miller I can tell by your shoes that you are a lover of liberty ------------------------------ From: mabeyke@batman.b11.ingr.com (boris) Date: Thu, 3 Nov 94 12:31:47 CST Subject: Re: RQR: First Post, Trolling for Replies > Hi All, Hi Loren. > What do you want to talk about first? > > 1. Why RQ:AIG failed to make it past playtest Unless someone has some inside info, isn't this like measuring the emporor's nose by asking everyone how long they think it is? In other words, no, not really. > 2. Developing a complete Staff/Vessel system for Sorcery This would be good. > 3. Format of RQ4 (omnibook etc, I missed Joe's first post on this) This also would be good. > 4. House rules Interesting, possibly not as useful as 2 or 3. > 5. This mailing list, or the rq-playtest list Or the nature of recursion. > Huh? Huh what? I think the development of a net RQ book would be an excellent project for this group, including workable sorcery and shamanism rules. I think we could produce an item that is playable, well formatted and *fun*, which could be used to get beginners interested. I don't know how much of that the copyright laws will allow us to do, but that is what I would like to see. - -- Boris Mikey, aka |"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to Maurice Beyke | strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then mabeyke@batman.b11.ingr.com| believe; if you wish to be a devotee of Intergraph doesn't want | truth, then inquire." my opinions. Nietzsche ------------------------------ From: "Loren Miller" Date: Thu, 3 Nov 1994 14:24:56 EDT Subject: Re: RQR: First Post, Trolling for Replies hi boris, you replied: >> 1. Why RQ:AIG failed to make it past playtest > > Unless someone has some inside info, isn't this like measuring >the emporor's nose by asking everyone how long they think it is? In >other words, no, not really. Don't underestimate the draw of gossip. But actually, I was asking if people wanted to critique the rules and tell us which large sections of the rules were bad. > I think the development of a net RQ book would be an excellent >project for this group, including workable sorcery and shamanism >rules. I think we could produce an item that is playable, well >formatted and *fun*, which could be used to get beginners >interested. I don't know how much of that the copyright laws will >allow us to do, but that is what I would like to see. Are you talking about a whole new set of RQ-compatible rules, which are not much like RQ? If that's what you're talking about I'm already working on it with GoonQuest 2. I don't plan to let the net design it, but I'd be happy to take suggestions on it from the net and this list in particular. Or are you talking about net.house.rules? - -- +++++++++++++++++++++++23 Loren Miller LOREN@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu I can tell by your shoes that you are a lover of liberty ------------------------------ From: "Loren Miller" Date: Thu, 3 Nov 1994 14:37:01 EDT Subject: RCPT: Re: RQR: First Post, Trolling for Replies Confirmation of reading: your message - Date: 3 Nov 94 14:24 To: RQ-Rules@hops.wharton.upenn.edu Subject: Re: RQR: First Post, Trolling for Replies Was read at 14:37, 3 Nov 94. - -- +++++++++++++++++++++++23 Loren Miller LOREN@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu I can tell by your shoes that you are a lover of liberty ------------------------------ From: rollin@EQL12.Caltech.Edu Date: Thu, 3 Nov 94 12:38:21 PST Subject: RQR: AiG I have copies of both the earlier RQ4 draft, as well as RQ:Aig. WHile I liked some of the earlier RQ4 rules quite a bit, I felt that there were several areas where AiG had taken a step backward: Shamen. I thought that RQ4 had made an attempt to make Shamanism a viable alternative to Sorcery and Divine Magic. I think AiG, when it decided to break up the shaman abilities RQ4 introduced took a step backward. Previous Experience: The RQ4 Previous experience was simply the best I have seen for the RQ system (from RQ1 - AiG). Backing off from that in AiG was unfortunate. The group I game with has been playing RQ off and on since a RQ1 was first introduced (1978). One of us (Wayne Shaw), ran a brief Gloranthan campaign, back when there still wasn't much information available on it (most of what we knew came from the boardgames White Bear, Red Moon and Nomad Gods). Since then, poeple have been pretty much building their own worlds, some of which have been pretty continually running for over a decade. I've never been more than very appreciative of Glorantha (I wouldn't want to live there, etc.), but love the RQ system. I'm certainly interested is discussing this stuff, but not really how it pretains to Glorantha (or the real world, for that matter) I'm more interested in getting a set of rules that manage to allow me to suspend my disbelief enough to use them, but at the same time, won't require continual revision or patching every six months (I'm getting too old for that... :)) Other topics I'd like to talk about: Sorcerors: Can we make them work? (Not either too good or too bad) Weapon Damage: Where do we set it? etc, etc, etc. I've gotten the AiG mailing list for quite a while (I'd guess it would be more than a year now), but felt that most any comments I could make regarding Glorantha would, at best, be uneducated, and, at worst, boorish. I just never felt that I had that much to contribute. Any one interested? \Rollin ------------------------------ From: DevinC@aol.com Date: Thu, 3 Nov 1994 15:54:03 -0500 Subject: Re: RCPT: Re: RQR: First Post, Trolling for Replies Loren, I got your first posting. The new list looks great! ------------------------------ From: mabeyke@batman.b11.ingr.com (boris) Date: Thu, 3 Nov 94 15:17:38 CST Subject: Re: RQR: First Post, Trolling for Replies > hi boris, you replied: > >> 1. Why RQ:AIG failed to make it past playtest > > > > Unless someone has some inside info, isn't this like measuring > >the emporor's nose by asking everyone how long they think it is? In > >other words, no, not really. > > Don't underestimate the draw of gossip. But actually, I was asking > if people wanted to critique the rules and tell us which large > sections of the rules were bad. I didn't say not to do it (having some small awareness of the limits of my divinity ;-), just that *I* didn't want to talk about it. However, critiquing the RQ2/RQ3/RQ4/RQAG rules and trying to get the best set from the mix is part of what I would like most from this group, generating a Net-RQ. > Are you talking about a whole new set of RQ-compatible rules, which > are not much like RQ? If that's what you're talking about I'm > already working on it with GoonQuest 2. I don't plan to let the net > design it, but I'd be happy to take suggestions on it from the net > and this list in particular. I like RQ, with some exceptions (like, RQ3 combat was slow and hard to explain [mixing movement up with the SR count brought me all kinds of comments such as "why can't I hit this guy, I've got the SRs, so what if I've done two things already, ...". Breaking movement out made it clear that the SRs were just a way to show who goes first.], sorcery was broken, shamanism was boring, etc.) I liked what I saw of GoonQuest 1, and am interested in GQ2 (being an avid OTE fan), but if it's "not much like RQ" then I'm also interested in something that is. Of course if GQ2 is is totally kewl, then I can get over it, also. As far as taking suggestions goes, are you going to try to incorporate the Vessel/Sorcery rules, or the "Beyke-Harris Fetch System" (TM and (c), dontcha know ;-)? Runepower? etc, etc. - -- Boris Mikey, aka |"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to Maurice Beyke | strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then mabeyke@batman.b11.ingr.com| believe; if you wish to be a devotee of Intergraph doesn't want | truth, then inquire." my opinions. Nietzsche ------------------------------ From: rollin@EQL12.Caltech.Edu Date: Thu, 3 Nov 94 18:59:19 PST Subject: RQR: Sorcerers Are there any sites that have copies of the various different variants on Sorcery? Or, could they be reposted here? In general, how should things like this be dealt with? \Rollin ------------------------------ From: Eric Rowe Date: Thu, 03 Nov 1994 19:08:20 -0800 Subject: Re: RQR: First Post, Trolling for Replies Howdy, > >What do you want to talk about first? > >1. Why RQ:AIG failed to make it past playtest >2. Developing a complete Staff/Vessel system for Sorcery >3. Format of RQ4 (omnibook etc, I missed Joe's first post on this) >4. House rules >5. This mailing list, or the rq-playtest list > First, I'd like to publicly announce Greg has a 'hand picked' team developing the new Gloranthan game. I'm not part of it and do not know who is on it (although I plan on asking so I can let them know of the list). It will swallow the concepts of Pendragon's rule system in the same way Pendragon swallowed the original RQ's. It should be released late 95, early 96. There may be playtesting at RQ Con 2. Be there or be square. eric ps I still like this new list for discussing the items Loren mentioned above, so send any replies there. ------------------------------ From: BRIAN ADRIAN JACKSON Date: Fri, 4 Nov 1994 09:42:32 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: RQR: First Post, Trolling for Replies > What do you want to talk about first? > Greetings, My reply to Loren's questionaire. > 1. Why RQ:AIG failed to make it past playtest Never did get a copy, so I can't really comment. Although there appeared to be alot of bickering off the list. > 2. Developing a complete Staff/Vessel system for Sorcery I am very interested in this idea. I'm currently testing my own version based on Paul's origional sketchy version posted to the rq4 list. > 3. Format of RQ4 (omnibook etc, I missed Joe's first post on this) I have yet to read a rpg rule book those overall layout and content was completely satisfactory, although standards are getting better. > 4. House rules I've got loads of these, some inspired by postings to the rq4 list and the rq daily. And I'm always interested in new ideas. > 5. This mailing list, or the rq-playtest list I think that until something gets sorted at AH and/or Chaosism, the rq4 list should be put to one side. We can always make a fresh start once we know whats happening. As a general note on rq4, I joined the list because RQ was my favourite games system and, once you located its many errors and inconsistences (and corrected them), was a versatile game system. I have run campaigns in 6 different backgrounds using RQ, only one of which was Glorantha, which I think proves I right in saying that. I wanted to help make rq4 even better than its predessers. Instead there was alot of background wrangling (of the funny handshake sort) between the old timers, no offence meant here ;), and the people running the project. Which discouraged me from sending in any contributions. (When your new to email, this all seems very bewildering). Until the next time. (Will there be a next time?). Brian Jackson. ------------------------------ From: "Loren Miller" Date: Fri, 4 Nov 1994 10:35:13 EDT Subject: Re: RQR: Sorcerers Rollin asks: >Are there any sites that have copies of the various different variants >on Sorcery? > >Or, could they be reposted here? I'd be in favor of encouraging the people who wrote the various Sorcery systems to summarize them here and posting a few of the more interesting ones. I'm not sure about spell lists and runic sorcery systems though, as I don't think they're very useful. - -- +++++++++++++++++++++++23 Loren Miller LOREN@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu I can tell by your shoes that you are a lover of liberty ------------------------------ From: Loren Miller Date: Fri, 4 Nov 1994 10:53:43 -0500 (EST) Subject: RQR: testing testing - -- Loren Miller I can tell by your shoes that you are a lover of liberty ------------------------------ End of RQ Rules Digest: V1 #1 *****************************