From: owner-rq-rules-digest To: rq-rules-digest@hops.wharton.upenn.edu Subject: RQ Rules Digest: V1 #90 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, 14 February 1995 Volume 01 : Number 090 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 Kirsten Jacobus RQR: Ray's ideas Kirsten Jacobus RQR: RuneQuest is not Glorantha anymore Kirsten Jacobus RQR: Spirit Combat Kirsten Jacobus RQR: REALITY CHECK TIME alex RQR: REALITY CHECK TIME Hugh Foster RQR: RQ Rules Digest: V1 #84 Joerg Baumgartner RQR: non-linear MP and other ramblings David Dunham via RadioMail RQR: who improves? Loren Miller RQR: non-linear MP and other ramblings Loren Miller RQR: who improves? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu (Kirsten Jacobus) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 95 12:42:36 -0500 Subject: RQR: Ray's ideas Again, let me chime in with the majority: I like Ray's ideas for a generic RuneQuest's magic EXCEPT his idea with spirit magic. "Spirit Magic" is badly misnamed. The RQ:AiG draft update's choice of "personal magic" is much better. To drop into a Gloranthan ferinstance: Just because the personal magic of the Praxians could very reasonably seen as a bunch of spirits floating around doesn't mean that this model fits the Dara Happans, even though the same basic game mechanics might apply to either culture's "multimissile" type spell. Ray's theory might be nice if RuneQuest became "The Prax Game" but even falls down within the bounds of Glorantha. What do you do once you try to export it to non-Gloranthan worlds? Sorcery is hermetic magic. There are non-hermetic magical systems that do not rely on spirits running around and doing every little thing for you. Many of the spells of European "witchcraft" are certainly not Hermetic (especially in the folk witchery of various farmer villages or the Hexen of the Amish), but they also don't fit at all into Ray's "spirits, spirits, spirits" version. The personal magic approach does describe these kinds of magic fairly well. If there must be spirits attached to spells, that should be artifacts of a particular setting, not part of core rules. ------------------------------ From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu (Kirsten Jacobus) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 95 12:56:10 -0500 Subject: RQR: RuneQuest is not Glorantha anymore Please, please, please realize that RuneQuest is no longer just Glorantha. I see so many discussions revolving around items that are really Gloranthan artifacts (a specific set of runes, specific Divine spells, spirits get tossed out for "spirit magic" regardless of the actual origin of the spell, etc.) First, RuneQuest could have the "Divine Power" rules. Adventures in Glorantha would have a special Glorantha rule restricting this. RuneQuest would have a system for handling religious and mystical iconography and integrating it into a setting as more than just window-dressing. Adventures in Glorantha would have specific Runes like "Death, Trade, Krarsht, etc. RuneQuest would have a discussion of the importance of myth to defining a culture and how myth and culture can change each other. Adventures in Glorantha would mention the "Heroquest" as a GLORANTHA-SPECIFIC way that the RuneQuest concepts could be implemented. The problem is that people seem unwilling to separate the two. The decision has been made. RQ is not Glorantha anymore, Glorantha is not RQ anymore. RQ rules should be CROSS-SETTING, not setting specific. It will be the job of the Glorantha book to give Glorantha-specific limitations to the base RQ rules. ------------------------------ From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu (Kirsten Jacobus) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 95 13:00:16 -0500 Subject: RQR: Spirit Combat >And have Spirit Attack, Spirit Parry, etc? Why? POW is your characteristic >Spiritual Strength, Magic Points your current spiritual strength, and the >chance of you forcing a spirit to do what you want is a resistance roll >based on your and the spirit's spiritual strengths. Elegant and simple. So then you also advocate eliminating the current RQ combat system and replacing it with a set of resistance rolls based on a single physical attribute? STR is your characteristic Physical Strength, Fatigue your current spiritual strength, and the chance of your forcing a person to do what you want is a resistance roll based on your and the opponent's physical strengths. Elegant and simple. This is what you want for physical combat, I would presume, since it is what you want for spiritual combat. ------------------------------ From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu (Kirsten Jacobus) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 95 13:03:36 -0500 Subject: RQR: REALITY CHECK TIME Okay, folks, it's time for a serious REALITY CHECK!!! Steve Perrin is NOT on the RQ4 design team. Ray Turney is NOT on the RQ4 design team. Steve may end up in charge of Adventures in Glorantha, but Adventures in Glorantha is not RuneQuest, it's a RuneQuest supplement. This splitting of RQ and Glorantha was NOT an Avalon Hill idea, it was a compromise to placate Greg Stafford and permit RQ to have any connection with RQ at all any more. ------------------------------ From: alex Date: Tue, 14 Feb 95 19:03:43 GMT Subject: Re: RQR: REALITY CHECK TIME > Okay, folks, it's time for a serious REALITY CHECK!!! I'm not clear at whom Bryan is SHOUTING, but I'll see if I can make said check. > Steve may end up in charge of Adventures in Glorantha, but Adventures in > Glorantha is not RuneQuest, it's a RuneQuest supplement. I have no idea who the Canonical RQ4 Design Time is at present, though I ceratinly understood that Steve was in there somewhere, either editing or otherwise. And AiG _was_ supposed to be RQ4: whether what, if anything is eventually published bears any resemble to the original Gang Of Four's draft is quite another matter. > This splitting of RQ and Glorantha was NOT an Avalon Hill idea, it was a > compromise to placate Greg Stafford and permit RQ to have any connection with > RQ at all any more. The first part of this is right, at least. Well, "only", really. The "splitting" was done mainly at Greg's instigation, because he thought it was a good idea. On the other hand, it is true that it he's probably rather glad of it right now, for reasons relating to his, and everyone else's, dissatisfaction with the AH line. Alex. ------------------------------ From: Hugh Foster <100326.446@compuserve.com> Date: 14 Feb 95 15:15:54 EST Subject: RQR: RQ Rules Digest: V1 #84 >>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.<< I found my players reacted the same way. I tried running MERP because I loved the background; and was swamped with protests because the defence bonus is all figgered into the oppo's attack roll. "But I wanted to parry that!" they cried. So I converted the whole thing into RQ rules. Much better! ------------------------------ From: joe@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 19:54:04 MEZ Subject: RQR: non-linear MP and other ramblings Let me add my voice (well, mail) in support of magic points in a non-linear relation to POW (presumed we keep MP). I think that the concept of MP in general is a Good Thing - I've played lots of systems which did not have them, and generally was disappointed. The best alternative I have seen so far was a combination of fatigue, short time hit points and magic points which could be spent either way (i.e. when exerting your PC extraordinarily, when hit, or when doing magic), regainable through rest (or exotic drugs with by-effects). A magic without any point losses would be nice, but the current thermo-dynamic approach (conservation of energy, increase of entropy) appeals to me. Cost-less magic or too cheap magic leads to munchkinism even with fairly sensible players, but in RQ3 each minor spell is a major expense of personal MP, unless some artificial storage or battery is used. If the latter are freely available, major spells go off without any significant cost for the caster, leading to Griffin Island's Halcyon var Enkorth and similar overmuscled abominations. Bookkeeping of MP hasn't been a problem in my games, so far. I know it confuses my experienced players when using "Battle Magic POW" vs. "Permanent POW" like in RQ2. Especially when a description only says "POW-cost", without specifying which (this came up interpreting the alchemy rules from RQ2, as well as in the cult requirement of e.g. Magasta that priests must sacrifice 2 points of POW each High Holy Day, in GoG - unresolved RQ2ism, or excessive soul burn-off?). A point-less system has the advantage that no or at least less mechanisms enter game language, but having levels with defined names for anything always reminds me of D&D character classes... RQ3 explains MP as units of life force generated by living beings. I like this explanation. RQ3 also says that MP are the atoms of magic energy. Maybe that is true, but I think that the exact amount of life force used up in magic could be less sharp than the strict integers of RQ3 MP suggest. Abolishing MP would solve this problem, but open new cans of worms, and hamper compatibility. If we had a skill resolution allowing more success levels (fumble - rarer than now, bad failure, slight failure, marginal success, good/normal success, special success, critical success - also rarer than now), which would also solve some problems with the success-level parry, we could vary the MP costs per spell effect, or else the spell effect per MP spent; or alternatively, have varying casting time. Imagine a character who failed his focussing roll by a bit and who is given the choice of either dropping the spell or keep trying to focus while the opponent closes up... (These success levels could influence the amount of damage, too - marginal success = grazing blow (use one or two dice worse than standard, e.g. 1d4 or 1d6 instead of 1d8), normal success = fair hit (use standard die), special success = strong hit (use one die better), etc. This could remove the need for parry AP.) I don't share David Cake's concern that non-linear MP will overpower sorcerers. Spirit magicians will benefit the same way, and those divine spells with variable MP boosting (Heal Wound, not to mention the "slightly unbalanced" Axe Trance) will benefit even more. If a sorcerer now has a bit more personal energy to burn off, fine with me - I have learned to hate those artificial MP batteries aka bound POW spirits, since they feel somewhat out of character to me. What sucked about RQ3 sorcery was that a sorcerer without external MP could let loose only one decent offensive spell per day, especially if both the MP of the sorcerer _and_ the MP of the spell had to overcome those of the target. Casting time as a limit for sorcery spell intensity was sufficient trouble, IMO. I liked Sandy's adaption of a lot of the suggestions from the playtest list, but I haven't had a chance to playtest these, yet. Steve Perrin suggested to use MP only for temporary POW losses, not as spell fuel. IMO this would make MP redundant. I'd rather see a universal rule for temporary ability loss, including DEX, STR, CON, INT and APP (SIZ I'll leave untouched, the False Size thread was long enough). Such abilities can be reduced in effectivity because of spirit attacks (e.g. those strange wraith attacks vs STR or CON which now eat MP), non-lethal diseases, illness, exhaustion, drugs/poisons, wounds (everybody who has blocked a strong bow with a stout stick will know that DEX isn't the same directly after the parry, even when no direct damage was done to the parrying arm). Likewise drugs or training (extended Orlanthi mountain-top pilgrimages cum training before major undertakings with CON-increases, anyone?) could temporarily increase these abilities. Loren posted a strange function to calculate "exponential MP", with rather strange results (lifting both the lower end and the high end, but actually lowering the standard PC range of MP available). I would have expected results about like this (no formula, just interpolation): POW MP POW MP POW MP POW MP POW MP 1 1 9 9 17 18 25 35 33 70 2 2 10 10 18 19 26 38 34 76 3 3 11 11 19 21 27 41 35 82 4 4 12 12 20 22 28 44 36 88 5 5 13 13 21 24 29 48 37 96 6 6 14 14 22 26 30 53 38 106 7 7 15 15 23 29 31 58 39 116 8 8 16 16 24 32 32 64 40 128 This gives a slight bonus in the upper human range but leaves the rest untouched, and increases rapidly outside the human range, doubling at every 8 points once outside human range. I'd suggest to use this table only for MP regeneration of embodied life, while spirit life regenerates only linear or via worship, but gets these values as upper limit of MP it can hold. Magically created automatons (gremlins, jolanti, spirits bound so that they control their binding object), beast familiars with greatly enhanced POW, partially embodied spirits (dryads, free elementals) and plants not exposed to sunlight might generate MP slower than their capacity per day, but faster than linear (maybe use two to four POW lower for MP generation rate). Entities which can steal MP ought to generate MP slower than linear, if at all (anyone remember my wolf POW spirits?). Their MP stealing can increase their MP to their capacity only. Some might have to expend some MP to attempt to steal, similar to the current Tap POW spell, but MP only. Opinions? - -- - -- Joerg Baumgartner joe@sartar.toppoint.de ------------------------------ From: David Dunham (via RadioMail) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 14:31:24 -0800 Subject: RQR: Re: who improves? Guy Robinson says >I am pretty confident that Steve Perrin and Ray >Turney, if given a free rein, can probably improve game mechanics and give >the RuneQuest background a much needed spring-clean I'm not -- and it has nothing to do with their talents. Or maybe it has everything to do with their talents. See, they're both creative game designers. And they've both done RQ before. They're probably tired of that, or at least full of good ideas they've come up with in the last 10 years. To exercise their creativity, they have to do something new and different and better. For example, Steve had some interesting ideas on how to get rid of MP and HP. But in my book, that would no longer be RuneQuest. Ray also is proposing rather sweeping changes, which might make a fine game but I think would make a poor RuneQuest. I'd be happier if some poor, unimaginative GM who slogs along, trying to use the rules as written, cleans up and clarifies things. I'd rather see deadwood stripped (strike ranks IMHO) and broken stuff fixed (fatigue IMHO) than adequate systems completely changed (spirit magic). David Dunham * Software Designer * Pensee Corporation Voice/Fax: 206 783 7404 * AppleLink: DDUNHAM * Internet: ddunham@radiomail.net "I say we should listen to the customers and give them what they want." "What they want is better products for free." --Scott Adams ------------------------------ From: "Loren Miller" Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 17:41:41 EST Subject: Re: RQR: non-linear MP and other ramblings My goodness, Joerg got energetic on us didn't he? I'm taking his stuff out of order. First Joerg kvetched about the behavior of the table I posted. I didn't think it was perfect either. This one might make you a little happier. It still follows the same formula but is a little closer to human at the lower, human end. POW MP POW MP POW MP POW MP 1 1 16 16 31 59 46 215 2 2 17 17 32 64 47 235 3 3 18 19 33 70 48 256 4 4 19 21 34 76 49 279 5 5 20 23 35 83 50 304 6 6 21 25 36 91 51 332 7 7 22 27 37 99 52 362 8 8 23 29 38 108 53 395 9 9 24 32 39 117 54 431 10 10 25 35 40 128 55 470 11 11 26 38 41 140 56 512 12 12 27 41 42 152 57 558 13 13 28 45 43 166 58 609 14 14 29 49 44 181 59 664 15 15 30 54 45 197 60 724 >This gives a slight bonus in the upper human range but leaves the rest >untouched, and increases rapidly outside the human range, doubling at >every 8 points once outside human range. ditto Notice that I would use this table only for converting old monsters with absurdly high POW scores. >A magic without any point losses would be nice, but the current >thermo-dynamic approach (conservation of energy, increase of >entropy) appeals to me. Cost-less magic or too cheap magic leads to >munchkinism even with fairly sensible players, Here's an Idea. Howabout instead of the current MPs we make the sorceror overcome the magnitude of the manipulated spell with his POW in order to manipulate it? If this attempt fails then the sorceror temporarily loses part of his POW stat. Do something similar for spirit magicians and initiates. This is similar to what Steve Perrin suggested. I think it has the right behavior for gaming needs. It makes skillful sorcerors and shamans truly dangerous without making them as awesome as Halcyon is in Griffin Island. >I'd rather see a universal rule for temporary ability loss, including >DEX, STR, CON, INT and APP (SIZ I'll leave untouched, the False Size >thread was long enough). Absolutely true. This is a common situation that RQ doesn't cover. IMO if we had rules for this it would cover lots of situations (trying to KO opponents, etc) that are difficult to handle under the present rules. And if we could use the same rules for POW disability as a result of spell failure then all the better. - -- +++++++++++++++++++++++23 Loren Miller LOREN@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Life at the water's edge is the real life for men and women ------------------------------ From: "Loren Miller" Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 17:48:10 EST Subject: Re: RQR: Re: who improves? David Dunham writes via RadioMail: >For example, Steve had some interesting ideas on how to get rid of >MP and HP. But in my book, that would no longer be RuneQuest. Ray >also is proposing rather sweeping changes, which might make a fine >game but I think would make a poor RuneQuest. Though I've been enthusiastic about many of these changes I also agree with David. My interest in these changes springs from the issues I found while trying to write GoonQuest 2. I had decided I wanted to get rid of MP and HP and all those points for GQ2, and Steve and Ray's ideas are useful approaches to implementing RQ-like combat and magic systems without MP and HP. >I'd be happier if some poor, unimaginative GM who slogs along, >trying to use the rules as written, cleans up and clarifies things. It seems that everybody who takes on this project wants to be an auteur who can rewrite it totally. - -- +++++++++++++++++++++++23 Loren Miller LOREN@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Life at the water's edge is the real life for men and women ------------------------------ End of RQ Rules Digest: V1 #90 ****************************** 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.