From: owner-rq-rules-digest To: rq-rules-digest@hops.wharton.upenn.edu Subject: RQ Rules Digest: V1 #60 Reply-To: rq-rules Errors-To: owner-rq-rules-digest Precedence: bulk Content-Return: Prohibited Return-Path: owner-rq-rules-digest RQ Rules Digest: Thursday, 2 February 1995 Volume 01 : Number 060 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 Brent Michael Krupp RQR: Multiple weapon use Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox. RQR: Steve's Spirit/Divine magic Proposals Jon Green RQR: Dump All Points... Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox. RQR: Of RQ4 and the last Playest Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox. RQR: Steve's Hit Point Suggestions GAWINTER@aol.com RQR: RQ Rules Digest: V1 #57 Mike Cule RQR: RQ4 RSN Truls Parsson RQR: Fatigue Points SPerrin@aol.com RQR: Dump All Points... SPerrin@aol.com RQR: RQ4, and Strike Ranks Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox. RQR: An Evening of Pre-Playtesting ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brent Michael Krupp Date: Wed, 1 Feb 1995 22:21:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: RQR: Re: Multiple weapon use On Wed, 1 Feb 1995, Donald Walli wrote (quoting me): > >This is a problem with players and referees, not rules. If a GM lets his > >players get away with abuses like this, it is not the fault of RQ. Simply > >insert a line or two in the gamemaster section encouraging GMs to > >exercise control over their games. > > Hmmm... I disagree. It comes directly from a rules construct: the 5 masteries > necessary to become a Rune lord. Esp. from those cults that require more > than one weapon mastery. > Why is this an abuse on the part of players, to be dutifully > squelched by good GMs everywhere? I think with some imagination this isn't as bad as you make out. Different weapons are for different purposes, so even if you are 90% with one, there will be times when you need to use another one. For instance, bow attack and sword attack can quite plausibly be increased in the same adventure, even the same combat. A Legionaire-type could carry a spear/javelin which is thrown at the start of combat, after which he uses sword attack and shield parry. If one fights "Florentine", one can plausibly develop skill in two attacks and two parries all in one combat. Etc, etc. It doesn't have to be "weapon-caddying". It does need a blurb in the GM section explaining all this, but that is a whole other topic: RQ needs more guidance for beginners to the system included within it. Brent Krupp (fletcher@u.washington.edu) "In the faculty of writing nonsense, stupidity is no match for genius." -- Walter Bagehot, 1826-1877 ------------------------------ From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com Date: Thu, 2 Feb 1995 01:00:10 PST Subject: RQR: Re: Steve's Spirit/Divine magic Proposals Now I have actually seen Steve Perrin's proposals, here are my comments on the feed back and the original suggestions. The chunk I am addressing here is Spirit and Divine Magic. Spirit or Battle Magic Steve suggested the chance for Spirit Magic is (Pow - Intensity) X 10 with a failure resulting in the loss of 1 Pow and 1d6+1 Pow for a fumble. During the wilderness years when I waited for something to replace RQ3, a period of ten years or so, I played a lot of Basic Role-Playing and one of these games was Stormbringer. The magic system there was similiar to the one that Steve suggested but if you failed a summoning you lost all Magic Points leaving you brunt out magically. This worked weel dramatically for this game, especially when I actually got to play a priest of Grome instead of GMing but I was inclined to move to a kinder system where the sorcerer only suffered a given die of MPs loss depending on the feat of sorcery that he was attempting. It looks like Steve is suggesting something similiar. From these experiences I would suggest the following: Chance for Spirit Magic is (MP -Intensity) X 10 + a complementary skill with a loss of 1 MP if you fail and a loss of 1d6+1 MP if you fumble. This means that Spirit Magic still causes the loss of MP, losing that MP causes your magical power to reduce and even people with low Pow have a chance to cast spells. Note that the suggested complementary skill could be Ceremony, using existing RQ4 mechanics. After all we are to have an MP stat on exiting RQ character write-ups we might as well use it. Also we might be able to establish a similiarity between failing to case a Spirit Magic spell and losing a round of Spirit Combat to increase the consistency of the rules. I can playtest this next week, pending any suggestions people have. Divine Magic. Although I am not completly familiar with the Divine Magic pool idea but I have heard about it. I have no objection about trying it out. I also think that Divine Magic should be automatic unless it is countered is some way by event or by an adversary. Like an enchanted item someone has sacrificed Pow for it so it should be reliable. Regards -- Guy Robinson -- ------------------------------ From: jonsg@diss.hyphen.com (Jon Green) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 1995 10:36:50 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: RQR: Dump All Points... In a possible past, Loren Miller said: > The RQ4 draft rules are only available to official playtest groups. > So unless you can find someone in your area who is in on the RQ4 > playtest you can't get them. > That's only half an answer, Loren. How do you _become_ an "official" playtest group? I concur heartily with the original questioner (Mustafa): right now, monitoring this list, I feel like one of the peasantry fighting for the small morsels and crumbs falling from the masters' table. I thought that there was a separate RQ4 discussion list. If RQ4 rules are to be discussed here, please either permit us access to (at least part of) them, or remove the discussion to the RQ4 forum. Or tell us peasants to quit this list and soil someone else's carpet. - -- jonsg@hyphen.com jon@sundome.demon.co.uk PGP key available on request --- Opinions here are mine, not Hyphen's ------------------------------ From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com Date: Thu, 2 Feb 1995 01:30:10 PST Subject: RQR: Of RQ4 and the last Playest Despite some people's grumbles, Mike and Oliver did respond to people's comments on the last playtest. They had an improved copy they were maintaining which at one point was going to be redistributed to playtesters. There was times when they did not respond very much but generally this corresponded to times when angry people were flaming innocent and humble people who broke their careers as living saints to succour the RQ playtest effort. :-) [for the humour impaired - that was a joke] The RQ4 playtest was quite extensive and well-advertised too. Depsite limited funds it reached a fair number of continents. The fact that you can not buy it currently is unfortunate and that you can only receive a copy if you are/was a playtester is a shame. However Steve's comments are new even to the few who have a copy of the previous RQ4 playtest version and probably warrant discussion on their own merit. And if Steve does manage the attempt to OK another edition of the RQ4 playtest rules then I would imagine that his list of playtesters is not finalised yet. Even if you have no interest in RQ4 as this discussion progresses I will greatly suprised if all number of RQ and Glorantha issues are presented and debated that will benefit anyone interested in RQ Rules. Regards -- Guy Robinson -- ------------------------------ From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com Date: Thu, 2 Feb 1995 01:45:40 PST Subject: RQR: Re: Steve's Hit Point Suggestions To start off these ideas looked a little crazy but I an beginning to see some positive sides to them. The current HP & locational HP system means that you have a certain total of Hit Points and each location has a given ammount based on that number. This means that your head for example possess a certain %age of your total HP regardless of what that total is. So there is potential for simplifing the system without keeping six different tallies of Hit Points for each location plus one for the overall body. At this point I might as well point out that I do not have a copy of RQ2 or RQ4 handy. If we could only have a Threshold, an Armour Value for each location and a note of the wound state of each limb then this might be an advantage. I think this suggestion warrants more thought. Regards -- Guy Robinson -- ------------------------------ From: GAWINTER@aol.com Date: Thu, 2 Feb 1995 07:51:11 -0500 Subject: RQR: Re: RQ Rules Digest: V1 #57 Steve Perrin says: > A long perceived problem with the RQ rules has been that they encourage > players to use every weapon, "just to get a check mark," even though there is > no good reason to do so. I thought the RQ4 approach of getting 3-5 checks per adventure, and then having the player portioning them out to skills he/she used during the adventure is sensible. Having played the system I can report that I make damm sure my parry and weapon skills go up quick, but I hate wasting 10 rolls to get a 90% shield parry to go up by 3.5. Therefore I increase my non-combat skills. I think the RQ character with a strong assortment of 75%'s in non-combat skills will be more fun than the dude with 115% in axe-attack. To reduce check hunting, we could stipulate that you really don't have to train any more weapons shot missile, thrown missile, cutting (1h & 2h cutting, smashing (1h & 2h), piercing (1h & 2h), and shield parry. Then allow people to shift weapons with a time penalty, but no requirement for extra training. > How about we have one set of basic combat skills. It would be simpler, and RQ would benefit from simplicity. But people take pride in being good with a particular weapon. The one-set approach would generate "me good combat guy" and he/she would be a natural fighter with skill in all weapons. Now at least we have the decision, I am kick-ass with my greatsword, but I can't fight in tunnels worth a damm. All in all, I would prefer not combining weapon categories, instead allowing people to shift proficiencies with time. i.e. Since i lost my left hand, my greatsword attack is useless, but for 1wk per 10% I can shift the skill to Swort sword. or I can get 50% of the skill in mace. In fact perhaps that is a general solution, take the checks in your best weapon, and then get accelerated training to bring the others up to that level. ------------------------------ From: Mike Cule Date: Thu, 02 Feb 1995 13:47:21 GMT Subject: RQR: Re: RQ4 RSN In reply to David Cake: I don't have a problem with 'Skills inflation'. I do feel ridiculous having to use Human Lore for everything from knowing how to greet a member of your own culture to recognising the origins of someone from the other side of the continent. I felt the number of skills on the RQ4 character sheet was excessive. But my favourite other system is GURPS and I do like the fact that in GURPS I can always find out the default value for any skill and therefore give reasonable chances for people doing things they're not trained in. I didn't use the additive rules for Fatigue, they seemed overly fussy. I just reduced skills by the indicated penalty. But the 'roll-every- fifth-round-based-on-Encumbrance' rule works. I felt the problem with the character generator system was that it intuitive the way the RQ3 rules (however flawed) are. I couldn't get my head around them. But perhaps the RQ:AiG rules would have been more palatable. - -- Mike Cule ------------------------------ From: Truls.Parsson@eua.ericsson.se (Truls Parsson) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 95 16:30:27 +0100 Subject: RQR: Fatigue Points David Dunham wrote: >Nobody used Fatigue Points, so those could come and go at will. In almost every game of RQ that I've played we have have used fatigue points. And not all of them had the same players or gamemasters. Why did we use fatigue points ? Because it was the only way to stop people from stomping around in heavy armours for hours on end. Espescially to stop people from using two layerd armour with impunity. They also worked well, though they were clumsy. OK we might be a minority who uses FP but we definetly exist. And fatigue is IMO necessary in some form for RQ to work. - -Truls ------------------------------ From: SPerrin@aol.com Date: Thu, 2 Feb 1995 12:05:22 -0500 Subject: Re: RQR: Dump All Points... Sorry to Jon Green and others in his position, Blame Shannon Appel (Hi, Shannon) who gave me this list as the place to discuss RQ rules. If there is another place to discuss RQ4 rules, please let me know the address... And, of course, most of the things I am proposing do not depend on RQ4's revisions. You can always use my revisions with the RQ3 rules, which is what I'm doing, anyway. Steve Perrin ------------------------------ From: SPerrin@aol.com Date: Thu, 2 Feb 1995 12:33:03 -0500 Subject: RQR: Re: RQ4, and Strike Ranks As I said very recently, most of the things I am proposing are completely outside what Oliver and Mike were proposing. You don't actually need the RQ4 rules to discuss and playtest what I am bringing up. I am very gratified with the response of those people who are saying they are about to playtest my suggestions. That's why I'm doing this. Strike Ranks I have said that if I was going to completely restructure RuneQuest (and no, I am not doing that with the suggestions I am making) I would probably toss out Strike Ranks. In particular, the attempt to remake Strike Ranks so that they control the entire combat round was, IMEducatedO, a grave mistake. On the assumption that Strike Ranks should be retained purely because they are on all those character sheets and NPC writeups, do people think they should be returned to the RQ2 standard of just regulating who strikes when in combat? And, if so, what constraints should there be on movement and combat in one turn? Those of you who have RQ4 rules may say that Mike and Oliver already addressed this problem. This could be, but I don't have the rules in front of me and can't remember their take on the situation. Steve Perrin ------------------------------ From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com Date: Thu, 2 Feb 1995 10:17:30 PST Subject: RQR: An Evening of Pre-Playtesting Here is what happened with my list of skills last night when we sat down to generate characters in a manner based on the RQ4 method but with more emphasis on a free-form style of design. In deference to the people who do not a copy of RQ:AIG I will attempt to explain as much as possible. I will repeat myself that this was an attempt to put something together to prepare for the playtest although it looks like things will be moving at a quicker pace than I anticipated. Fair enough. On Wednesday I'll be trying out both a form of Steve's locational damage and the matter of MP loss based on rolls for Battle Magic failing & fumbling. This means that I will have to design a new character sheet so I have included notes about this below. Any comments other than irrational flames are appreciated. After we resolved attributes, skill category modifiers and figured characteristics we set about discussing the characters people wanted to play. In deference to the Orlanthi pantheon I had prepared a Warrior template, an Entertainer template and a template for a character who had been directed towards the kind of role that Lhankor Mhy, Issaries or Chalana Arroy cult members perform. I prepared a list of 37 skills, plus 5 that were labelled as Crafts in RQ4 that I did not think warrant this classification. Of those 37 skills I expressed doubt about the use of 2 of them (Enchant and Summon) and noted that some other would could be demoted to a background colour list (notably Boat, Dance and Play Instrument). Some skills like Pass did not entice a player to select them. I was amazed that someone choose Jump that person probably learned to select this after bitter experience in a game of BRP. ('What do you mean I have only a 30% chnace of making that jump?') On a character sheet I would put a smaller number with blank spaces for the less common skills to be written in. There were 15 skills with a starting %age 15 or higher, they would make it on a character sheet I would write. Ceremony, Orate and Persuade I would include as well. This would give a reasonable base of 18 skills to act as a first port of call when you are looking for a skill. I will attempt to draw a new character sheet with the wound states that RQ4 uses for each location ready to be ticked off during a battle in some format. I will have to experiment. However the list was a success in that my players were able to look at the list, noting the difficulty and the base chance, and where able to plan what skills they might select. One player attempted to buy Intrigue but bulked at the price and went for something else. He spent a fair amount of time rejigging his skills. Another player choose to go for the 'devotee' template and so I awarded him with Speak Sartarite, Ceremony plus a Weapon Attack and Parry as a basic set of skills. The warrior template was pruned down to Manoeuver, Scan, Weapon Attack x 2 and Weapon Parry. The bottom line is that presentation is everything. The rewritten skill lists did help people consider skills that were not considered earlier. There was nothing too embarrasing like an Acolyte without Ceremony that I encountered in my previous sessions of by-the-book playtesting of RQ:AiG. The templates are usefull if they help bring out both the key skills a character needs, as a competent warrior needs Manoeuvre with the RQ4 rules, but they definitely should be throughly checked the final set of any skill list. I think that there should be common template for each culture showing the common skills of that culture that people can choose from. Craft/Brewing cries out for such a treatment in the Sartarite Culture. Regards -- Guy Robinson -- ------------------------------ End of RQ Rules Digest: V1 #60 ****************************** 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.