From: owner-rq-rules-digest To: rq-rules-digest@hops.wharton.upenn.edu Subject: RQ Rules Digest: V1 #32 Reply-To: rq-rules Errors-To: owner-rq-rules-digest Precedence: bulk Content-Return: Prohibited Return-Path: owner-rq-rules-digest RQ Rules Digest: Wednesday, 30 November 1994 Volume 01 : Number 032 RULES OF THE ROAD 1. Do not include large sections of a message in your reply. Especially not to say "Yeah, I agree." Those who do will be lynched. 2. Use an appropriate Subject line. RQR: will be prepended to it. 3. Do not engage in a point-by-point analysis or rebuttal of another person's message. It is too confusing for others to follow, qualifies as nit-picking, and it usually leads to flame wars. 4. There is no number 4. TABLE OF CONTENTS PAUL POFANDT RQR: POW gains. David Dunham via RadioMail RQR: Horse Archery David Cake RQR: Horse Archery Truls Parsson RQR: Why do writers not know the rules? Michelle Ringo RQR: Why do writers not know the rules? Loren Miller RQR: POW gains. Loren Miller RQR: Why do writers not know the rules? Bruce Lionel Mason RQR: Why do writers not know the rules? Steven E Barnes RQR: POW gains. David Cake RQR: POW gains. Peter Metcalfe, CAPE Canty RQR: Why do writers not know the rules? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: PAUL POFANDT Date: Tue, 29 Nov 94 17:56:22 +1100 Subject: RQR: POW gains. G'day Since the subject of POW gains has been raised, I'd like to ask a question that I've never seen satisfactorily answered. __What mechanics cover the POW gain of Allied Spirits/Familiars?__ I can understans using the (Species max + Species min - Current) * 5% for A.S. since they usually have a defined Max/Min (usually 3d6). However, some forms of Fammiliars have no min/max POW since the POW is supplied to them as part of thier creation. Any suggestions? Catch Ya Paul. ------------------------------ From: David Dunham (via RadioMail) Date: Tue, 29 Nov 1994 00:09:31 -0800 Subject: RQR: Re: Horse Archery David Cake suggests > Or maybe it is just subsumed in the Horse Archery skill, so people >with Horse Archery are assumed to have at least that chance of doing it, >with minuses for horses movement. At last! An actual use for Kuschile Archery! I never understood the point, but now we learn that it lets you string your bow from horseback. >I seem to >remember that in RQ2 horse archery was treated simply as bow skill when on >a horse, which could lead to the odd situation where you were worse with a >bow off a horse. Right, the skill never made sense, since ALL skills are already limited by your Ride. ------------------------------ From: davidc@cs.uwa.edu.au (David Cake) Date: Tue, 29 Nov 1994 17:33:37 +0800 Subject: Re: RQR: Re: Horse Archery >David Cake suggests >>I seem to >>remember that in RQ2 horse archery was treated simply as bow skill when on >>a horse, which could lead to the odd situation where you were worse with a >>bow off a horse. > >Right, the skill never made sense, since ALL skills are already limited by >your Ride. Err.... I think that we can probably assume that Kuschile Horse Archery itself is not limited by your Ride skill. Cheers David ------------------------------ From: Truls.Parsson@eua.ericsson.se (Truls Parsson) Date: Tue, 29 Nov 94 10:55:15 +0100 Subject: RQR: Why do writers not know the rules? It was mentioned that NPCs usually has a huge POW. Something about NPCs that bother me even more is that they don't follow the rules. Specifically I'm talking about the chance to cast spirit magic. A NPC might have 16 Pow but his chance to cast spell say Heal 2 is 107%. Yet the rules clearly states that the chance to cast a spirit magic spell is Pow*5 no modifiers added and no experience gain possible. So his chance should be 80% not 107%. Why o why can't RQ writers follow the rules? - -The Troll ------------------------------ From: "Michelle Ringo" Date: Tue, 29 Nov 94 09:57:40 EST Subject: Re: RQR: Why do writers not know the rules? RQR cannot follow the rules because they are more caught up in the social dynamics -- mythological significance of Glorantha -- and accusing each other of God Learnism. Looking up the rules appears to interfere with their Maximum Game Fun. Plus that would require an editor or proofreader who cared which I doubt that Chaosium is interested in providing. Cynically yours, Michelle Ringo ------------------------------ From: Loren Miller Date: Tue, 29 Nov 1994 11:50:37 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: RQR: POW gains. I believe that all spirits had a flat 5% chance of increasing in POW. IMO, that's also the justification and mechanism for having NPCs with high POW. If a mortal reaches max POW and stays there, then it has a flat 5% chance of increasing further. I would also use the stretchy POW maximum rule, so that once a mortal has achieved a higher POW then that is its new maximum POW. - -- +++++++++++++++++++++++23 Loren Miller "I don't have to practice what I preach 'cause I'm not the kind of person I'm preaching to!" The Book of The Subgenius ------------------------------ From: Loren Miller Date: Tue, 29 Nov 1994 12:13:11 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: RQR: Why do writers not know the rules? Michelle Ringo writes: > RQR cannot follow the rules because they are more caught up > in the social dynamics -- mythological significance of > Glorantha -- and accusing each other of God Learnism. I don't think that the authors are like that. I think the reason their stuff doesn't follow the rules is more simple than that. They all play highly variant versions of RQ. Nobody plays the standard rules, especially not the people who write RQ modules. For instance, Greg and Sandy appear to use the Laws of Similarity and Contagion in their games, and I know that Sandy gives all magic whizbang special effects (disruption is a line of puke-green energy from the mage's finger to the hit location of the target, etc). > Looking up the rules appears to interfere with their Maximum > Game Fun. Hey! As the person who first articulated the concept of Maximum Game Fun I must defend it. It doesn't mean that the game is UNimportant, but that the game is MORE important than gloranthan continuity. You've got it turned around 180 degrees. > Plus that would require an editor or proofreader who cared > which I doubt that Chaosium is interested in providing. Cynic is right. There's an easier answer: Two many cooks spoil the soup. Pun intended. - -- +++++++++++++++++++++++23 Loren Miller "I don't have to practice what I preach 'cause I'm not the kind of person I'm preaching to!" The Book of The Subgenius ------------------------------ From: Bruce Lionel Mason Date: Tue, 29 Nov 1994 13:51:01 -0330 Subject: Re: RQR: Why do writers not know the rules? On Tue, 29 Nov 1994, Michelle Ringo wrote: > RQR cannot follow the rules because they are more caught up > in the social dynamics -- mythological significance of > Glorantha -- and accusing each other of God Learnism. > Looking up the rules appears to interfere with their Maximum > Game Fun. Can someone enlighten me as to what this cryptic message is about? Are bits of RQR not turning up? Must admit it's my understanding that RuneQuest and Glorantha are poised for something of a divorce with Stafford producing a new rpg based on Glorantha. Leads to the question should ideas for variant Gloranthan rpgs be posted here or to the Glorantha daily. Neither list seems totally appropriate. - ---Bruce ------------------------------ From: akuma@netcom.com (Steven E Barnes) Date: Tue, 29 Nov 1994 12:44:33 -0800 Subject: Re: RQR: POW gains. >I believe that all spirits had a flat 5% chance of increasing in >POW. IMO, that's also the justification and mechanism for having NPCs >with high POW. If a mortal reaches max POW and stays there, then it >has a flat 5% chance of increasing further. I would also use the >stretchy POW maximum rule, so that once a mortal has achieved a higher >POW then that is its new maximum POW. I am quite certain that official RQ3 has a fixed species max for POW. Various proposed new editions of RQ may have included such rules. My theory about the NPCs with high POW is that the authors want a gross NPC, that cannot be simply taken out by a sever spirit, or several coordinated disruptions. There are various explainations of how a person could aquire such power, but regretably, Chaosium/AH never bothered to write rules for them (see: Heroquest, promoted in the back of Cults of Terror in 1981...) I did find Michelle's comments quite funny (sorry Loren)... - -steve ------------------------------ From: davidc@cs.uwa.edu.au (David Cake) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 1994 09:27:58 +0800 Subject: Re: RQR: POW gains. >There are various explainations of how a person could aquire such >power, but regretably, Chaosium/AH never bothered to write rules >for them (see: Heroquest, promoted in the back of Cults of Terror >in 1981...) > Nay, first promoted in the back of RQ2, 1979.... Cheers Dave Cake ------------------------------ From: "Peter Metcalfe, CAPE Canty" Date: Wed, 30 Nov 1994 13:47:17 +1300 Subject: Re: RQR: Why do writers not know the rules? >It was mentioned that NPCs usually has a huge POW. Something about NPCs >that bother me even more is that they don't follow the rules. Specifically >I'm talking about the chance to cast spirit magic. A NPC might have 16 Pow >but his chance to cast spell say Heal 2 is 107%. Yet the rules clearly states >that the chance to cast a spirit magic spell is Pow*5 no modifiers added >and no experience gain possible. So his chance should be 80% not 107%. >Why o why can't RQ writers follow the rules? Actually it appears to be a house rule of Oliver Jainocovic (sp?). Add the magic bonus to the POW x 5 and it adds up. >-The Troll ------------------------------ End of RQ Rules Digest: V1 #32 ****************************** 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.