From: owner-rq-rules-digest To: rq-rules-digest@hops.wharton.upenn.edu Subject: RQ Rules Digest: V1 #98 Reply-To: rq-rules Errors-To: owner-rq-rules-digest Precedence: bulk Content-Return: Prohibited Return-Path: owner-rq-rules-digest RQ Rules Digest: Friday, 17 February 1995 Volume 01 : Number 098 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 David Dunham via RadioMail Glorantha Game; DI; Runepower PAUL POFANDT Has anyone tried Elan PAUL POFANDT [none] SPerrin@aol.com RQR: Runepower pool and DI SPerrin@aol.com Compatibility & reality Alex Ferguson DI; Runepower Jens Haeusser RQR: Support for expo... David Cake RQR: RQ3 Critique ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Dunham (via RadioMail) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 13:07:47 -0800 Subject: Re: Glorantha Game; DI; Runepower >From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com >>Oh and let's not forget that Chaosium are already writing a Glorantha RPG >>as well, which in all honesty I might just prefer to jump with if some >>of the stuff floating around here is kosher. > >And the editor of such a book, if it is to proceed, is Steve Perrin. The >very person who is looking at the possibility of doing something I would >hazard to guess would be very unkosher in your books. No, Steve would be working for Avalon Hill. Chaosium has a completely separate project under way, if rumors are to be believed. Perhaps it would be useful for Steve to say what the AiG book actually is. I didn't picture it as having lots of rules, but more likely a compendium of stuff needed to play the basic game in Glorantha. This would include cults and cultures, and if it's called "Adventures in Glorantha" it should at the very least have some scenario ideas if not short scenarios. It would have rules for things like Rune Lords if those aren't in the base game. >From: GAWINTER@aol.com >This has undoubtebly been suggested dozens of times but...why not allow for >an automatic DI for any cult rune-spell. If it is critical that the Humakti >cast slay living, then he does so with his DI. One reason why it hasn't been suggested could be that it short-circuits one-use divine magic. But if you think all divine magic should be reusable (even if at a very slow rate), the DI use would be non-reusable. A compromise would be to have the standard POW% chance, but the cost of casting Sever Spirit would be 3 POW, no matter what was rolled. Alex said of Jeff's RunePower >It's not entirely analogous to spirit magic, of source, since for one >thing there's only a single "resource" (sacked POW) which is used for >both "points" and "learning", while SM has two. (Respectively, mps and >INT, that is.) I think there's a lot of misunderstanding about what Jeff wrote. (I could be the source of this, of course.) There is _not_ a single resource. You learn rune magic by special rituals. No POW is involved. (This is analogous to learning a spirit magic spell.) You get rune points by sacrificing POW. (Rune points are analogous to magic points.) As I recall, the single resource idea was something David Cheng proposed in his original article. It is not how I read Jeff's post. ------------------------------ From: PAUL POFANDT Date: Fri, 17 Feb 95 09:39:05 +1100 Subject: RE: Has anyone tried Elan Guy_Robinson writes: >>As a related question, has anyone ever tried using the Stormbringer >>ELAN rules in RQ instead of DI. >As someone who has played with Elan in Stormbringer the downside is >that it lengthens the minimum write-up that a cult needs. How much extra would be requires. A couple of lines I'd have thought. > Also it does tend to highten intercult conflict. But I LIKE inter-cult conflict. >Also people can attempt to min-max their Elan and practises >even worse than the weapon caddy may be attempted. This point I'd agree with you. Giving players direct control over Elan might cause problems with mini-maxing. However, it strikes me as similar to how some version of WIL are worked out. WIL=POW plus X/skill mastered plus X per year as priest plus ... I might give it a try and see what happens... Catch Ya Paul. ------------------------------ From: PAUL POFANDT Date: Fri, 17 Feb 95 09:39:04 +1100 Subject: [none] Alex says: >> Why not have the cost of DI taken out of your Runepower pool. The heavy cost >> od your DI is still paid in X points of POW, without permenantly debilitating >> the character. >I suggested something on these lines, but not quite so drastic. Doing >it exactly as above would have the effect that the majority of initiates >would have _no_ chance of DI. The _devout_ ones would. ie thoes that sacrifice for thier dieties favor. ------------------------------ From: SPerrin@aol.com Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 17:57:46 -0500 Subject: Re: RQR: Runepower pool and DI PAUL POFANDT writes >>Why not have the cost of DI taken out of your Runepower pool. The heavy cost of your DI is still paid in X points of POW, without permenantly debilitating the character.<< Assuming that DI is not removed entirely from games that use Runepower, this sounds like a good and logical idea. >>As a related question, has anyone ever tried using the Stormbringer ELAN rules in RQ instead of DI.<< As one of the authors of Stormbringer, I am embarrassed to admit that I don't recall these rules, and am so busy replying to all this email that I don't have time to look it up. Anyone else have this problem? Steve Perrin Catch Ya. Paul. ------------------------------ From: SPerrin@aol.com Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 17:58:48 -0500 Subject: Re: Compatibility & reality Guy Robinson wrote: >>... 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, albeit if only in the Generic book. With the RQ4 work to use a base I am pretty confident about this.<< Just a cautionary note: Ray and I are strictly kibbitzers in this version of the RuneQuest rules. The primary filters are Mike McGloin and Oliver Jovanivic(sp?). They are trying to get their rules printed, based on what the previous playtests came up with. I'm going to pass along this stuff, and everyone else is welcome to do the same (welcome as far as I am concerned--I can't speak for Ollie and Mike, who seemed to have been scarred by their previous contact with this Distinguished Gathering. Play nice, people.). What we are discussing could end up being RuneQuest 5... Scary thought, huh? Steve Perrin ------------------------------ From: Alex Ferguson Date: Thu, 16 Feb 95 23:03:59 GMT Subject: DI; Runepower > [automatic DI for any cult rune-spell] > One reason why it hasn't been suggested could be that it short-circuits > one-use divine magic. But if you think all divine magic should be reusable > (even if at a very slow rate), the DI use would be non-reusable. This was my own feeling. I toyed with a variety of solutions, which were designed to make it less reliable, at least generally more expensive, _and_ non-reusable. But it should be more possible and less costly than a generalised full-blown DI, I felt. > A compromise would be to have the standard POW% chance, but the cost of > casting Sever Spirit would be 3 POW, no matter what was rolled. One variation of this I tried was that the "cost" of DI or spell was a minimum, in POW or RPP, otherwise number rolled (or a related number) was used. > Alex said of Jeff's RunePower Note that I was talking mainly about _my_ variant, which I understood Jeff's to be at least somewhat similar to. > >It's not entirely analogous to spirit magic, of source, since for one > >thing there's only a single "resource" (sacked POW) which is used for > >both "points" and "learning", while SM has two. (Respectively, mps and > >INT, that is.) > There is _not_ a single resource. You learn rune magic by special rituals. I don't think that's what Jeff said; he appeared to fairly clearly say that you sacked POW, as per a RQ(2/3/4) spell. I'm sure Jeff'll put me right if I've misread this (or if he indeed miswrote it). I suppose there is the additional cost of time, possible danger, etc, involved, though, in either event. At any rate, I can at least confidently state that _my_ RP varient has a "single resource" (in terms of stats, anyway), so there at least the spirit magic model is inexact in the way I suggested. There's a certain similarity in practice though, I agree. > No POW is involved. (This is analogous to learning a spirit magic spell.) This is certainly what _Henk's_ system implied. So basically, there is _no_ (finite) resource being used by spell-learning, which I felt was a (mild) weakness. "Let's go learn all the spells, then!" > As I recall, the single resource idea was something David Cheng proposed in > his original article. It was? I must have missed that. I thought there was essentially no restriction on which spells you "knew" in RP-Cheng. Corrections and comments, particularly from any misrepresented authors, welcomed. Alex. ------------------------------ From: jensmh@sdri.ubc.ca (Jens Haeusser) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 16:10:28 -0800 Subject: Re: RQR: Re: Support for expo... >If dumping MPs the only place you'd need the conversion table would >be in the rules for converting old-style monsters with huge POW. That >table would look something like this. I used the formula: > > MP = 2^(2+(POW/8)) > >to generate this table. I believe that's the closest pure formula to >Bryan's proposal. Reading his post, I thought that he was talking about a function with a formula closer to MP = (MP at POW-1) + TRUNC ((POW-1)/8), giving this table: 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 10 10 11 11 12 12 13 13 14 14 15 15 16 16 17 18 18 20 19 22 20 24 21 26 22 28 23 30 24 32 25 35 26 38 27 41 28 44 29 47 30 50 31 53 32 56 33 60 34 64 35 68 36 72 37 76 38 80 39 84 40 88 41 93 42 98 43 103 44 108 45 113 46 118 47 123 48 128 49 134 50 140 51 146 52 152 53 158 54 164 55 170 56 176 57 183 58 190 59 197 60 204 61 211 62 218 63 225 64 232 65 240 66 248 67 256 68 264 69 272 70 280 71 288 72 296 73 305 74 314 75 323 76 332 77 341 78 350 79 359 80 368 81 378 82 388 83 398 84 408 85 418 86 428 87 438 88 448 89 459 90 470 91 481 92 492 93 503 94 514 95 525 96 536 97 548 98 560 99 572 100 584 101 596 102 608 103 620 104 632 105 645 106 658 107 671 108 684 109 697 110 710 111 723 112 736 113 750 114 764 115 778 116 792 117 806 118 820 119 834 120 848 121 863 122 878 123 893 124 908 125 923 126 938 127 953 128 968 129 984 130 1000 131 1016 132 1032 133 1048 134 1064 135 1080 136 1096 137 1113 138 1130 139 1147 140 1164 141 1181 142 1198 143 1215 144 1232 145 1250 146 1268 147 1286 148 1304 149 1322 150 1340 151 1358 152 1376 153 1395 154 1414 155 1433 156 1452 157 1471 158 1490 159 1509 160 1528 161 1548 162 1568 163 1588 164 1608 165 1628 166 1648 167 1668 168 1688 169 1709 170 1730 171 1751 172 1772 173 1793 174 1814 175 1835 176 1856 177 1878 178 1900 179 1922 180 1944 181 1966 182 1988 183 2010 184 2032 185 2055 186 2078 187 2101 188 2124 189 2147 190 2170 191 2193 192 2216 193 2240 194 2264 195 2288 196 2312 197 2336 198 2360 199 2384 200 2408 but I could be completely off... =) Jens. ------------------------------ From: davidc@cs.uwa.edu.au (David Cake) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 1995 10:28:43 +0800 Subject: Re: RQR: RQ3 Critique >As this has generated what has appeared to be usefull criticism of RQ3 >I will continue with this thread. > >David Cake wrote: > >>The question is, how do we make content that 'inspires'? RQ2 had a >>pretty small amount of 'inspiring' content that didn't make it to RQ3 >>eventually (considered as page count) [...] > >Well, considering that your are liable to underplay RQ2, you can not >judge a book on page count alone. The direction, the expression and >the presentation of book can go a long way to its success. Some of >that success might actually be de to what is left out as much as to >what is explicitly, and literally, put in. > My point was that the RQ2 rulesbook was, by its nature, mostly full of rules. The rules, while very good for the standards of the time, are not presented in a way that is particularly inspiring by todays standards. Compared to todays games with fancy typesetting, little start of chapter quotes, nice art, introductory stories, selections of pre-done of typical types, etc. it is pretty plain. It wasn't even particularly well organised, with a lot of the more important material being relegated to the Appendices. Why was it so good? I contend that the rulesbook as a whole can only be seen as really great for its time - if you think that RQ2 would be considered inspiring as a whole if released now, you are lost in nostalgia. But there are certainly some small parts of the rulesbook that really work, and really grab you. The Gloranthan introduction at the start, for example, and the Runes section both really get you interested. I think trying to copy the style of the rulesbook as a whole is not a worthwhile endeavour. But trying to copy the style of the best bits is a good idea (even if we have to do most of it in the AIG book instead of in the rules). I agree that leaving out information is perhaps as important as leaving it in. Of course, this doesn't necessarily mean that I agree with Guy. I suspect he means that we could have done with a few less rules - I personally found the RQ 2 rules definately lacking a lot. What I mean is that much of the background stuff in RQ2 was fragmentary and incomplete. People are mentioned with no explanation of who they are, mythical figures are mentioned without the myth, etc. The effect is to give an impression of there being a lot more to Glorantha than what is given there, which is of course true. >>Looking back >>on it, the fact that I bought RQ3 almost straight away shows that I >>have been an RQ fanatic longer than I realise. > >This is the kind of comment I have commonly seen made by a RQ3 fan. > The point is I bought RQ3 because I was a big RQ2 fan. All the people who wrote RQ3 were big RQ2 fans. They wanted to improve the game. Trying to cast the issue in terms of RQ3 radicals and RQ2 conservatives simply doesn't apply. RQ3 appealed to many RQ2 fans. I feel that the problem with RQ3 was not alienating RQ2 fans, but failing to pick up anyone else. >>The big problem been is that a lot of the RQ2 grognards assumed >>that they were supposed to substitute for real cult writeups, rather than >>being just a throwaway temporary solution. Much the same applies to the GoG >>short form writeups too, come to think of it. > >Yes, RQ3 was in part throw away. As I would have thrown away more than >I would have kept I think I was wise not to shell out hard cash for this >product that we agree was relatively very expensive. > This was NOT what I meant. The RQ3 stuff was designed more for people creating their own campaigns, and so was intended as a place to start, not a destination. The hard truth is that not that many people want to design their campaigns from nothing. If you were considering using RQ3 to create your non-Gloranthan campaign, you may well have appreciated the way RQ3 set out divine magic (which seems to be a major sticking point). I certainly found the way RQ2 set out divine magic much less useful without COP, COT. My position on RQ2 vs RQ3 could be summarised as RQ3 is a better set of rules overall, though with some definate flaws, but RQ2 was better designed as a rulesbook for a Gloranthan game. In hindsight, the Glorantha was more important. Several years later, the amount of Gloranthan material available for RQ3, and its high quality, makes it the better option for Gloranthan roleplay, but this results from the many excellent supplements rather than the rules books. I consider the supplement support to be the most important aspect of RQ3, which is why I am willing to compromise on the rules to preserve the easy use of those supplements. Cheers david >Regards > > -- Guy Robinson -- ------------------------------ End of RQ Rules Digest: V1 #98 ****************************** 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.