From: owner-rq-rules-digest To: rq-rules-digest@hops.wharton.upenn.edu Subject: RQ Rules Digest: V1 #91 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 091 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 SPerrin@aol.com RQR: Runes and Quests SPerrin@aol.com RQR: No to Runepower SPerrin@aol.com RQR: another lurker speaks Hugh Foster RQR: RQ Rules Digest: V1 #87 Loren Miller RQR: No to Runepower SPerrin@aol.com RQR: non-linear MP and ot... SPerrin@aol.com RQR: Support for expo... Kirsten Jacobus RQR: Use of a divine pool Kirsten Jacobus RQR: Steve's suggested spirit combat: SPerrin@aol.com RQR: REALITY CHECK David Cake RQR: non-linear MP and other ramblings Charlie Domino RQR: game balance Charlie Domino RQR: Divine and Spirit Magic ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPerrin@aol.com Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 17:57:35 -0500 Subject: RQR: Re: Runes and Quests Guy Robinson says >>Another thing I would like to bring up is some justification for the Quest part of the RuneQuest. I see that by combining the aboriginal DreamTime and Socrates' Realm of the Forms you could come up with something very satisfactory for Questing. >>I would recommend that only those people who have build up enough affinity with the Runes and enough defintion from his society (as in the Humanist Existentialism of Jean Paul Sartre) would venture into the DreamTime and start to interact with the mythic Forms. >>I envisage the questing as a shamantic journey in an environment where such quests are objectively effective, albeit by subjective means. You can not do it alone for you first must become a legend before you dare to expose yourself to the terrible forces that may oppose you.<< Well, actually, this is much how I had envisioned early RQ, though if I had ha d this eloquence it would be in the rules now. Getting back to that is a very nice concept. >>PS. This year, for recreational purposes, I have been studying Philosophy at A-level and this has provided some excellent material. Utilitarian Experience for FUDGE anyone?<< Is anyone going to explain to this newbie just what this FUDGE thing people keep referring to is? Steve Perrin ------------------------------ From: SPerrin@aol.com Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 18:45:04 -0500 Subject: Re: RQR: No to Runepower Jim Chapin protests: >>Hate to disagree with my good friend David Cheng, but I think that Runepower is basically a BAD idea! Ruins backward compatibility, for what?: to make divine magic users MORE powerful? Talk about a solution to a non-problem! The main complaint against sacrificing for specific spells seems to be that you aren't sure when you will need them! Fine by me: people ought to think. I must say, in the games I have GMd or played, everyone has NOT taken the same spells!<< Current thinking is that Runepower would be the base system, with Gloranthan Divine Magic users still having to sacrifice for specific spells. Since virtually every product out there with character stats is Glorantha-based, there is no backward compatibility problem. The complaint about sacrificing for specific spells (besides the fact that it is a left-over D&D mechanic) is, IMNSHO, more a logic and "reality" issue. If a holy person is appealing to her god, she asks for help with the current p roblem and the deity does what it can with what it has. In this case, the deity looks at the asker's "account" and determines what the asker has "credit" for. This leaves the question open whether the DM user would be able to say "Father of War, please sever that bugger's spirit," or a more general appeal such as "Father of War, please protect your servants from that giant." Such questions, I'm sure, can be answered by the Savants Assembled. Steve Perrin ------------------------------ From: SPerrin@aol.com Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 18:49:24 -0500 Subject: Re: RQR: another lurker speaks Brian, Welcome to the discussion. Good comments. Hope to hear more from you. Steve Perrin ------------------------------ From: Hugh Foster <100326.446@compuserve.com> Date: 14 Feb 95 16:37:54 EST Subject: RQR: RQ Rules Digest: V1 #87 >>You end up with a crappy movie that claims the old name simply for marketing's sake, and also prevents any *decent* sequel from ever being made.<< You're not, no, you can't be, talking about... Highlander II ?!?!? Oh, well, then you're absolutely right. See my comments in Digests passim re Traveller. ------------------------------ From: "Loren Miller" Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 18:53:35 EST Subject: Re: RQR: No to Runepower Steve P writes: > This leaves the question open whether the DM user would be able >to say "Father of War, please sever that bugger's spirit," or a more >general appeal such as "Father of War, please protect your servants >from that giant." Such questions, I'm sure, can be answered by the >Savants Assembled. Obviously... "please father of war, lend me your spirit sword so I can despatch this giant as you did to the father of giants at the bridge of the river sauvage." - -- +++++++++++++++++++++++23 Loren Miller LOREN@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Life at the water's edge is the real life for men and women ------------------------------ From: SPerrin@aol.com Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 18:55:38 -0500 Subject: Re: RQR: non-linear MP and ot... Jeorg Baumgartner suggests: >>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.<< Some very interesting ideas, both in what's copied above and the rest of the missive. But are you suggesting the above in lieu of hit points? Or as a general rules construct that would abolish Magic Points? Or what? Steve Perrin ------------------------------ From: SPerrin@aol.com Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 19:16:37 -0500 Subject: Re: RQR: Re: Support for expo... Loren Miller in response to Steve Barnes writes: >>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?<< An excellent question, but the two forms of combat are different and deal with different magnitudes (probably the wrong word, I told you I'm a liberal arts major) of number. Also, my system would still have the attacker rolling a damage number to compare against the hit point threshold in the location hit. Perhaps the spirit combat roll on the Resistance Table could be treated as a type of hit, with normal (victim is stunned and cannot attack next turn), special (victim is stunned and temporarily loses 1 point of POW) and critical (victim is stunned and temporarily loses 1d6 points of POW) until one side of the fight is out of POW and at the mercy of the winner. Further, an attack against a stunned opponent automatically kicks up the result one level, so that a normal success is -1 point of POW and continued stun, a special is - -1d6 POW and stunned, and a critical is automatic takeover/whatever? Comment? Steve Perrin ------------------------------ From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu (Kirsten Jacobus) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 95 19:36:07 -0500 Subject: RQR: Use of a divine pool "Make me the Sword that is Death!" This was the DI cry of a Hueymakti in the face of an army of Broo. Now, under the RQ:AiG rules that later became suggestions, the Duck lost all but two POW (due to the roll) and got a pile of divine magic (Truesword, Humakt Berserk, the rest as Shield). Under the RQIII non-rules for DI, we'd have no idea what to do. Why not use the Divine Power (nee "runepower") rules as a basis for a Gloranthan-specific magic in which both "rune spells" and "divine intervention" are contained? If, that is, a version of Divine Power is used as the basis for "Divine Magic" in the next attempt at RQ... ------------------------------ From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu (Kirsten Jacobus) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 95 19:39:12 -0500 Subject: RQR: Steve's suggested spirit combat: Steve's suggestion, as written, basically comes down to "whoever gets the first good roll wins". But that's no worse than what currently exists in RQIII. :wq ------------------------------ From: SPerrin@aol.com Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 20:08:57 -0500 Subject: RQR: Re: REALITY CHECK Officially (or at least as official as it gets with no contract) I am the editor of Adventures in Glorantha. Adventures in Glorantha will be connected to the new RuneQuest and what game-related items there are in the book will be related to RQ4. However, RQ4 is a separate product. My connection to the RQ4 rules is as unofficial adviser. Mike and Oliver and whoever may or may not listen to my recommendations. As I told David Dunham on this list several days back, this could all become "Perrin's New Fantasy Game" with no connection to either RuneQuest or Glorantha. However, if that's what happens it will probably be very compatible with RuneQuest and RuneQuest products. As they say, you can't copyright a system... So I am not the official reviser of the RuneQuest rules set. Oliver and Mike are. Nothing I have proposed here is official, except that the author of the original rules is messing with them and would anyone like to help. I'm participating in this list because it's meant for a discussion of the RuneQuest rules. That's what I'm doing. Is that enough reality for everyone? Steve Perrin ------------------------------ From: davidc@cs.uwa.edu.au (David Cake) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 09:49:43 +0800 Subject: Re: RQR: non-linear MP and other ramblings >I don't share David Cake's concern that non-linear MP will overpower >sorcerers. That wawsn't quite my concern. In fact, I was really just commenting that non-linear MP made one of the core parts of the Duration vs Maintain debate strangely irrelevent. The idea was to replace the much maligned (at least by me!) non-linear Duration with Maintain - which was linear (sort of) but is now non-linear as MPs become non-linear. Now that yo mention it though, I am concerned that exponential increase of ability seemed to be a bad thing in the RQ3 sorcery rules. Basically, I think that while discussion of why it would be a good thing has focused almost entirely on the non-problem of semi-divine monsters, I am concerned that it could have large effects on game balance in the 20's. And paradoxically, if it doesn't have an effect on game balance at the high human level, I would rather dump it as an unnecesary change. > 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. Hmm... Joerg, you really know how to get me enthusuastic about a proposal - tell me it will make Axe Trance more unbalanced! 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. I rather liked it. Reminded me of things like the interesting SwordBearer magic system, for example. > 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 would rather fix this with decent spell descriptions. Cheers Dave ------------------------------ From: Charlie Domino Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 22:36:58 -0600 (CST) Subject: RQR: game balance Perhaps I've missed something so far, but in the Great Magic Debate, most of the arguments I've seen so far could be summarized as follows: 1. Sorcery is broke, let's use plan (x/y/z) to fix it. 2. MP's don't work, let's junk the whole system. 3. Spirit magic ought to involve spirits directly. 4. Divine magic could be flexible "runepower"; abolish DI. 5. Initiates should rely on divine magic exclusively. 6. RL & RP magic should be tied to their initiate base. 7. Don't mess with the system, it won't be RQ anymore. The one thing that I've missed so far in the debate is a serious attempt to "outguess the player." In other words, if we make certain changes to the game system, in which direction will the players run with the ball? How will it affect that mythical icon, game balance? Let's haul out the crystal ball (ignore the cracks, please), and have a go at this, treating the three magic systems as totally seperate for now. Fixing sorcery is probably the easiest of the lot to predict. More GM's will allow sorcerors, more players will play them, IF the solution works. Depending on changes to the other magic forms, it might be seen as "having an advantage," especially over the current form of Shamanism. Abolishing MP's is a major alteration to 20 years of RQ. Aside from alienating both RQ2 and RQ3 players/gm's for the sake of some abstract Unified Game Theory, I don't see much in favor of this. If the problem with RQ's sales is lack of (scenario) support, why indulge in forcing GM's to rewrite what's already out there. Yes, some here have said "sure, I'd do it!" That doesn't mean the market, by and large, *wants* to. Sorry, that's not a "balance" criticism, but I can't see what the effects would be, vis-a-vis the three forms on this issue. Spirit magic with actual spirits--I'm still not clear on whether this is supposed to be one use or not. This will revolve on how easy it is to get any given spell, throw it, and regain it. Will the spell list be limited in some way? If the list is unlimited, and it is no harder than now to get a spirit magic spell, shamanism could be seen as having the advantage, especially if Initiates are forced to give up spirit magic. Runepower might not be a bad idea, and perhaps more initiates will use rune magic, if they get the spells reusably. These two changes could cause a shift towards Divinities. But see below. Relying on Divine magic exclusively in Glorantha is not a good idea, unless the spells are rewritten and expanded considerably. Major shift in balance to shamanism if this is done. What's better in an extended battle, the ability to cast another Protection 4 or waiting a season for the next holy day so you can get your Shield spell back? Tying the RL and RP to their intiate base and taking spell selection out of the player's hands is a major ripoff. Granted from a cultural or religious standpoint, it is a defensible idea, but for MGF, it sucks royally. If players start as initiates (seems to be normal in RQ3), there needs to be a worthwile goal for them. Attaining a cult status that removes spell choices to the GM will be no fun for either; think of the GM who has to decide how many followers will give his player spells ("well, there's seven priests at your temple, and there are 306 initiates spread out among six tribes, but you're the junior priest, so only 1/20th of them are "assigned" to you, and let's see how many got a pow check this year....") Save that idea for the Kralori and the Path of Imminent Mastery. Not messing with the system isn't a viable alternative, as it's obvious that RQ3 is broke. But minimal messing is advised. I'll put another $0.02 worth about that in a later post. Charlie ===================================================================== "What are we going to do tonight, Brain?" "The same thing we do every night, Pinky. Try and take over the world" =========================cdomino@icsi.net=========================== ------------------------------ From: Charlie Domino Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 22:58:22 -0600 (CST) Subject: RQR: Divine and Spirit Magic Due to the length and amount of digests flying lately, I won't quote the original ideas herein. Please refer to the original posts to refresh your memories. Ray has proposed a system of spirit magic that actually invovles spirits, while at the same time stripping Initiates of their spirit magic. As I've noted elsewhere, I feel this skews game balance in favor of the shamanistic adventurer. I'd like to propose that Divine magic be split into "lesser magics" and "greater magics." The lesser form would be the current "spirit magic" offered by the cult; the greater form would be the current "divine" or rune magic. The current form of "spirit magic" for a *shamanistic* practicioner of magic would be the version Ray has put forth, actually involving sprits in the casting of the spell. These spells could be the random versions as put forth by another contributor on the list. To summarize, there would be three unique forms of magic: 1. Sorcery - to be determined 2. Shamanism - fueled by the ability to control spirits 3. Divine - fueled by the expenditure of MP and sacrifice of Pow. Also, I like the idea of scaling the MP upwards instead of a strict 1-1 ratio; though I favor the curve beginning at 8 Pow as has been suggested before. When a resistance roll is needed though, I favor Pow vs. Pow, not MP vs. MP. This has several effects: 1. Flattens the curve for spirit combat; a five point difference is nearly insurmountable without magic. 2. Keeps a player from being "befuddle bait" right after casting protection 4 or that needed healing. 3. Ups the amount of spell casting a player can do (under an MP fueled system). Comments anyone? Charlie ===================================================================== "What are we going to do tonight, Brain?" "The same thing we do every night, Pinky. Try and take over the world" =========================cdomino@icsi.net=========================== ------------------------------ End of RQ Rules Digest: V1 #91 ****************************** 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.