From: owner-rq-rules-digest To: rq-rules-digest@hops.wharton.upenn.edu Subject: RQ Rules Digest: V1 #84 Reply-To: rq-rules Errors-To: owner-rq-rules-digest Precedence: bulk Content-Return: Prohibited Return-Path: owner-rq-rules-digest RQ Rules Digest: Monday, 13 February 1995 Volume 01 : Number 084 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 Liam_McCauley@qsp.co.uk RQR: Attack and Parry Nigel Smith RQR: Knockback recovery Nigel Smith RQR: Attacks and Parries Joerg Baumgartner RQR: Non-Gloranthan Runes for RQ3 Bryan J. Maloney RQR: Human sacrifice Bryan J. Maloney RQR: Knockback Steven E Barnes RQR: Support for expo... Loren Miller RQR: Support for expo... Brian Jones RQR: another lurker speaks SPerrin@aol.com RQR: Fwd: RQIV ideas SPerrin@aol.com RQR: Support for expo... SPerrin@aol.com RQR: Support for expo... SPerrin@aol.com RQR: Sorcery Hugh Foster RQR: RQ Rules Digest: V1 #83 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liam_McCauley@qsp.co.uk Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 16:28:11 -0000 Subject: RQR: Re: Attack and Parry Personally, I like to roll for my parry. I don't think making an attack and a parry roll will take any longer than making one roll and checking on (for example) some resistance table, or subtracting two numbers, or whatever. I feel happier being struck down by a blow because I missed my parry, rather than because the GM rolled under some combined attack/defence score. It just feels right to me. On a connected topic, I like the idea of a manoeuvre skill which combines dodging and parrying. This seems to more accurately reflect the weapons training I have done, although I don't know if this carries over to heavily armoured sword and shield type combat. Any comments from the SCA people? Cheers, Liam Liam_McCauley@QSP.co.uk ------------------------------ From: ns10005@hermes.cam.ac.uk (Nigel Smith) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 17:12:46 +0000 Subject: RQR: Knockback recovery In response to my knock-back query, Greg Walsh wrote: >(I could give a blow by blow example but I have bet people >have seen this before. Knockback makes for some dramatic situations. >But not many people seem to use knockback rules.) Since this was the only reply it seems Greg was correct. Is knockback another candidate for removal from RQ4? Nigel ------------------------------ From: ns10005@hermes.cam.ac.uk (Nigel Smith) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 17:12:27 +0000 Subject: Re: RQR: Re: Attacks and Parries Steve Perrin: >As long as I'm suggesting altering major facets of the RQ rules... > >One complaint about the RQ system is constant dice rolling of attacks and >parries. Many consider the parries (and defense in RQ3) too much hassle. My players, D&Ders and newcomers, found it a little confusing at first (but were helped by the structured effect of SR's - "SR7, my turn!") but on a recent return to AD&D there were soon reqests to be allowed to attack twice but lose some armour class, or lose the attack and gain armour class. Attack/parry/dodge gives the player more tactical choices in a combat and can increase the tension - "I hope I make this parry" - in a way that is lacking in the hit roll/damage roll AD&D system. If the combat is a close one and everyone is involved we find that, although it may take some time to complete, you don't notice HOW long until afterwards. Since we play in the top room of a pub, combats are often followed by a mad rush for the bar/toilet! Nigel ------------------------------ From: joe@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 1995 13:40:34 MEZ Subject: RQR: Non-Gloranthan Runes for RQ3 Loren Miller > Further, I do not think that Fantasy Europe was a > fiasco _from_the_beginning_. The reason it became a fiasco was that > Chaosium and Avalon Hill orphaned it. They never released ANY > products for Fantasy Europe or the Alternate Earth line other than > Vikings and Ninja. The gloranthan releases that came out were pretty > good to excellent, both alternate earth releases were excellent. Amen. Alternate Earth certainly was one of the reasons why I explored deeper into RQ(3, which I began with - the Games Workshop edition, which while entirely non-Gloranthan brought a lot of European customers to the system). > Imagine sourcebooks for: [list deleted] > Fantasy Europe was a fiasco because AH never followed-up on it. NOT > because Fantasy Europe was a bad idea. Amen again. > Glorantha already includes the gloranthan set of runes. There are no > other settings written with runes for runequest. What's the problem > again? Here you err, Loren - Vikings has the full set of the Futhark, explained in the same (shallow) depth as the Gloranthan runes are in RQ3. - -- - -- Joerg Baumgartner joe@sartar.toppoint.de ------------------------------ From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 95 13:18:57 -0500 Subject: RQR: Human sacrifice I'm not being nasty, but please take the "human sacrifice" discussion to the Glorantha daily. This isn't the list for it. ------------------------------ From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 95 13:28:34 -0500 Subject: RQR: Knockback I use knockback, but you only get knocked back one meter for every SIZ of hit points you get hit with. (By "for every SIZ" I mean every multiple of the target's SIZ). If you get hit with half your SIZ or more in one swat to the chest, abdomen, or head, there's a chance you'll get knocked DOWN but not sent flying. ------------------------------ From: akuma@netcom.com (Steven E Barnes) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 11:42:40 -0800 Subject: Re: RQR: Re: Support for expo... >presumably if MP were abolished then spirit combat would be changed to >be more analogous to physical combat. no more need for MP that way. Yes, but then you would need some sort of "spiritual hit points". These points would be related to POW in some way. Gee, maybe we could use MPs for this purpose... - -steve ------------------------------ From: "Loren Miller" Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 15:21:06 EST Subject: Re: RQR: Re: Support for expo... Steve Barnes replies to me: >>presumably if MP were abolished then spirit combat would be >changed to >be more analogous to physical combat. no more need for >MP that way. > >Yes, but then you would need some sort of "spiritual hit points". >These points would be related to POW in some way. Gee, maybe we >could use MPs for this purpose... But Steve Perrin's proposal for combat doesn't use HP. Why would spiritual combat need spiritual HP if physical combat doesn't need physical HP? - -- +++++++++++++++++++++++23 Loren Miller LOREN@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Life at the water's edge is the real life for men and women ------------------------------ From: bjones@retzlaff.llnl.gov (Brian Jones) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 12:37:29 -0800 Subject: RQR: another lurker speaks First some background; I have played rq2, but many years ago, so am not fit to comment on it. All of my my experience is with rq3. RQ combat: The reason I play RuneQuest is because I like the armed combat mechanics. I always start out saying I'm going to use the fatigue and knockback rules, but the fatigue goes out the window simply because both I and the players forget to use it, so why bother. Knockback never happens because I run a pretty low level campaign, the few times it has come up, I had to look up the rules for it again, which slowed down the game, but I think it's still usefull and like the rule. Seperating Glorantha and RuneQuest: I love reading the Glorantha material, but I doubt that I will ever actually run a game in Glorantha (cause I'm a sadist and like starting my players out as total wimps, and they would drop like flies in Glorantha and not have any fun at all). Thus, I thing that seperate RuneQuest and Glorantha is a GOOD IDEA. Sorcery: In my current campaign, in a world of my own devising, due to a great and titanic struggle, the gods are currently off-line. This leaves only spirit and sorcereous magic. Guess what? The sorcery rules are so badly broken that I think I'm going to adopt the Ars Magica rules (as well as I can). Runes: Until now, I hadn't thought much about it, but I lioke the idea of linking spells to different runes, or combinations of runes. Summary: Ok, not very much new said here, but at least one more lurker has thrown his opinion in to try to push the balance in his favor. |---------------------- "History shows again and --------------------------| | DISCLAIM again how nature points Brian R. Jones | | THIS! out the folly of men" bjones@retzlaff.llnl.gov | |---------------------- B.O.C. -----apprentice gnuru-----| ------------------------------ From: SPerrin@aol.com Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 17:09:31 -0500 Subject: RQR: Fwd: RQIV ideas Some thoughts from my distinguished co-author, Ray Turney, to toss into the brew. Have fun. Steve Perrin - --------------------- Forwarded message: From: rturney@netcom.com (Raymond D Turney) To: SPerrin@aol.com Date: 95-02-13 01:15:37 EST I would also suggest a Stormbringer style divine favor system for making RL and for DI. At the same time, consider weakening the skill qualifications for RL to say, 2 90% and 3 75%. The reasoning here is that making RL should depend significantly on whether a character's actions are holy, but that we don't want RL's to be total wimps in skills, either. One might consider broadening the concept of RL so that it encompass non-combat areas to a much greater degree than is now the case ... there would be Lankhor Mhy rune lords who were in effect knowledge and law masters, etc. I suggest quietly dropping the idea of allied spirits ... or making them a subclass of cult spirit granted by successful DI. The reasoning here is simply that allied spirits stylistically smack strongly of shamanism. Acolytes should continue to exist, as a category of initiates 50% or better in Ceremony and Cult lore, authorized to perform ceremonies to regain or sacrifice POW to a deity as if they were priests, and also allowed to cast Divination. Acolytes are generally not supported by the cult, nor do they have a pool of POW donated by others. Acolytes exist for two reasons: many cults are thinly spread, for example it would be rare to find enough Chalanna Arroy in one place to support a paid priestess and a full temple; and many cults that are strong in their centers of power have a zone of influence where there are enough worshippers to hold ceremonies but not enough to support a paid priesthood. Acolytes are also candidate priestly types, ready to step in if the priest dies. The point about allied spirits raises the issue of shamanistically influenced cults. These should offer cult spell spirits similar to the ones discussed below, and POW sacrificed to the deity should be added to the character's POW for spirit control. Shamanistically influenced cults may also offers shamanistic skills to their initiates. Finally, I suggest that spirit magic work by sending spell spirits into spirit combat with an enemy, but the spirit casting the spell on the enemy if it wins and then returning to the spirit plane. I suggest a limit on total spirits controlled of say (POW*10) + (Spirit Combat %/5) + ... on second thought, plus nothing. Each Pow point of spirit controlled counts against this limit, thus a character with POW 12 and no special ability might put his effort into 2 POW 18 attack spirits and the rest into 8 other spirits with an average POW of 10. These may be bound into objects so they may be automatically recalled or resummoned by the shaman or other magical specialist {their true names after all being known} at need. My motive for suggesting this reinterpetation of spirit magic is to more clearly distinguish it from sorcery. I'm not against characters learning spirit magic themselves, to cast on themselves and objects associated with them, either. In general, I think, the more we can work spirits into spirit magic, the better, stylistically. This also evens spirit magic up with divine magic, in conjunction with the initiate regaining divine magic rule. Both spirit magic and divine magic would have a limited number of shots, though the limit would be different ... and both would be reusable. The current situation, in which characters on a long expedition rely heavily on spirit magic because it is much easier than divine magic to regain, even if they are priests, would be rectified. I suggest changing the experience system, so that in addition to checks there are also stars - when a character tries a skill and fails the player can star it. To go up in a starred skill, the player must roll less than both current skill percentage {to prevent rapid learning of weak skills thru failure} and the character's INT * 3 {to prevent nearly automatic increased of starred high level skills in the rare event of failure}. At the end of an adventure, the player may roll up to five checked or starred skills. The player may also roll up to 5 checks or stars per real week in relevant non-combat occupational skills, if the character is leading a life outside of adventuring in a campaign setting, at the GM's discretion {this allows for Lawspeakers, Traders, Blacksmiths, Farmers, etc to go up, without worrying a lot about the details}. The purpose of these changes is to allow for the observed phenomena of learning thru failure and learning non adventuring related skills, without unduly complicating the rules. The limit to five is to reduce the incentive to unrealistic CheckQuest and the development of multi-skilled monsters of the adventurer character class. Raymond Turney ------------------------------ From: SPerrin@aol.com Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 17:10:31 -0500 Subject: Re: RQR: Re: Support for expo... I said: >> I've been suggesting the abolishment of MP altogether... What >> would this do to the argument?<< And Loren said: >>It could work fine with the abolishment of MP, and would indeed be quite a bit more elegant. The replacement method would have to use the resistance table or some mathematically similar mechanism (such as the threshhold thing you suggested for damage) to keep the behavior of POW exponential.<< And I'm still confused. As far as I can tell, using my original concepts, a CBat with a 112 POW who blew a spell would lose temporary use of 1 or 1d6+1 (to use one possibility) points of POW, depending on whether it failed or fumbled. This is fairly meaningless to the CBat, but a big hassle to a POW 15 character. Are you saying there would be an exponential sliding scale (amazing how the buzzwords flow from my fingers) expressed by a graph in the rules so that the loss of 1 point from the normal would be the equivalent of 15 or so (dragging numbers from behind my left earlobe) from the CBat? Or is my little liberal arts mind missing the point entirely? Steve Perrin ------------------------------ From: SPerrin@aol.com Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 17:11:15 -0500 Subject: Re: RQR: Re: Support for expo... Steve Barnes writes: >>If MPs are abolished, how is spirit combat handled? As a rules-lawyer, I'm always interested in seeing new ideas. I doubt the abolishment of MP from RQ is good for the future of the game, however. - -steve<< Essentially, the spirit and its victim/attacker lose POW temporarily (for the course of the struggle) until the final outcome is resolved. This is kind of a reversion to RQ1 (when there were no MPs), but I believe the POW loss was permanent, then. (Hey, I just wrote the rules, you can't expect me to remember them 16 years later). We could retain MPs, actually, which would work better for backward compatibility, but just use them as a marker for temp POW losses rather than a point battery to be depleted and slowly replenished. Steve Perrin ------------------------------ From: SPerrin@aol.com Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 17:11:28 -0500 Subject: Re: RQR: Re: Sorcery Bruce, Some very good points. In particular, using the "runes" as a basis for magic of all kinds (spirits embody one rune, gods several runes, sorcerers manipulate rune relationships) does give a central theme to a newly generic game. This Rune mastery was supposed to be one of the themes of original RQ, but kind of got lost in the shuffle and the problems with the specific nature of Gloranthan runes. Something can be done with this... Steve Perrin ------------------------------ From: Hugh Foster <100326.446@compuserve.com> Date: 13 Feb 95 17:19:21 EST Subject: RQR: RQ Rules Digest: V1 #83 >>altho I guess that there should be a rule that says parry cannot be 25% more or less than attack and vice versa.<< No! My reneactment experience contradicts that. I'm fair at parrying with a shield, but probably couldn't attack an unarmed man with it; conversely, I'm not too bad attacking with a 2H axe, but my parry is so poor I try not to use it much... Perhaps more so as the character gets more skilled, but at those rarified heights, 25% gets less improtant. ------------------------------ End of RQ Rules Digest: V1 #84 ****************************** 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.