From: owner-rq-rules-digest To: rq-rules-digest@hops.wharton.upenn.edu Subject: RQ Rules Digest: V1 #100 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 100 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 Peter Donald Canon to the left of me, magic systems to GAWINTER@aol.com RQ4 Revisions Peter Donald Glorantha and elan Loren Miller Canon to the left of me, magic systems to Kirsten Jacobus e David Dunham via RadioMail Ray's ideas Steven E Barnes Power ideas Steven E Barnes "Will"power Steven E Barnes Ray's ideas Loren Miller Power ideas Staffan Tjernstrom Magic - a spiritual experience? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Peter Donald" Date: Fri, 17 Feb 1995 11:02:33 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Canon to the left of me, magic systems to the right... David Cake wrote: >Most games of RQs vintage are dead or dieing or going >threw similar problems to RQ. Call of Cthulhu's roughly the same vintage, and doing better than ever. Of course H.P. Lovecraft is safely dead, which makes it a great deal easier to work with his world... Kirsten Jacobus wrote: >Canonical is whatever Greg says it is in the last ten minutes. True in one sense, untrue in another, and not terribly useful in trying to get a successful game written either way. >If the rules define the canon, then the relationship of the rules to >the setting is ass-backwards. From a design POV I generally agree (although working backwards can be a lot of fun). >The canon should determine the rules. From the POV of the average gamer who just shelled out a chunk of last month's income for a new RPG, the rules *are* the canon. Paul Pofandt wrote: >As a related question, has anyone ever tried using the Stormbringer >ELAN rules in RQ instead of DI. I've been tinkering with such a system for a while. In addition to using it to replace DI I've also been considering using it to track advancement within the cult (ie. you need a Divine Favour (nee Elan) total of X to read Rune level). When (if) I ever get the thing worked out in somewhat more detail I'll post it to the list. Joerg Baumgartner wrote: [much snippage on separating "spirit" from "battle" or "personal" magic] >Yes, this leads to a proliferation of magic systems, or at least co-existing >system variants. So what? That makes magic a more personal affair. As >long as the game effects are clearly defined, a GM can handle this. A >proposal that the newby GM ought to start with only one of the variants >and introduce the others slowly would help, along with a description of >the type of culture that uses these approaches, and suggestions how >outsiders in other societies (the classical witches, frex) can provide >foreign-style magic. I think that this would be a great idea, in both Gloranthan and non-Gloranthan contexts - it adds richness to the world and allows greater definition of different cultures. Steven Barnes asked: >By the way, if anyone can recommend any good books about real-world >magical systems, which describe terms such as Contagion in >a straight foreward manner, I would be grateful. I highly recommend Isaac Bonewits' _Real Magic_. I can't find my copy to check the publisher's specifics, etc., but I b'lieve it's still in print - check local occult/New Age bookstores; if they don't have it, they can probably order a copy. (Bonewits also wrote a companion volume called _Authentic Thaumaturgy_ (published by Chaosium) on applying real-world magic systems to RPGs, but it's been OOP for years). - -- "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag and begin slitting throats."---------H. L. Mencken ------------------------------ From: GAWINTER@aol.com Date: Fri, 17 Feb 1995 11:34:19 -0500 Subject: Re: RQ4 Revisions Guy_Robinson Said: > If you can not envisage a better product than RQ3 other than the same > again but with slight changes then why are you seeking to contribute to > a group about house rules for RQ and the playtesting of RQ4? I think that "troll" was stating a preference for a RQ4 that is recognizably an evolution of RQ3. I too take that approach. Simply put, lets concentrate first on fixing what is WRONG with RQ3 as it is written, those parts of the system that are cumbersome or get in the way of MGF. These are the parts that _must_ be fixed. Now that doesent mean we can't change the remainder, after all even if something works, it can still be improved. But we should be much more cautious about changing these rules. I recognize it is frustrating, we toss around ideas, and find that even the most trivial rule, or those generally recognized as bad have adherents. (with the possible exception of sorcery-- everyone hates that ((with the possible exception of Greg Stafford))). I would advocate making changes to the rules that harm backwards compatability only after all other options are exhausted. A closing (unconnected) thought, perhaps we the list participants are really not the most significant audiance for RQ4, after all we play RQ3.x, RQ2.5, AiG, PenDragon Pass, homebrew. Obviously we will change the rules to suit our needs, buy the material for the Glorantha lore, if they don't really piss us off they will keep us as customers. The real audiance for RQ4 might be the unconverted masses of AD&Ders who yearn to play a meatier game. Perhaps the RQ4 rules should be written specifically with them in mind. ------------------------------ From: "Peter Donald" Date: Fri, 17 Feb 1995 11:55:52 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Glorantha and elan Guy Robinson asks: >The question is do you need to have collected Gloranthan supplements >for several year to be able to play within Glorantha, to understand the >Western continent, to feel you have enough information to start playing >within this guarded world? Unfortunately in my experience most gamers these days would say "yes". I'd say the reasons for this are two-fold: the changes in the buying habits and expectations of gamers since the days of RQ2, and the fact that many of the AH RQ releases have emphasized breadth over depth. Steve Perrin channels Ray Turney: > Agreed that an elan based D.I. system would be good, but it would >also be very hard to write without referring to particular cultures and >deities ... The more specific examples the better, of course, but I think a generic overview would actually be easier to write ("Master cult-approved skill: gain 5 elan" is easier than coming up with specific modifiers for a slew of different cults). >Analyze Cult Magic is proposed because it is ridiculous for a Humakhti or >Yelmalion to have to go a Lankhor Mhy to establish that an item is holy >to his own god. Good point, and a worthwhile spell. - -- "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag and begin slitting throats."---------H. L. Mencken ------------------------------ From: Loren Miller Date: Fri, 17 Feb 1995 13:21:26 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Canon to the left of me, magic systems to the right... I also recommend Bonewitz's _Real Magic_ as a good basis for understanding what RPG designers such as Stafford and the like mean when they talk about the laws of contagion, similarity, and so on. I believe that Bonewitz and Stafford have met and talked about the issues involved in representing realworld beliefs about magic in a game system, certainly Bonewitz had these conversations with David Hargrave (the late author of the Arduin Grimoire). At one time I thought of running a Chivalry and Sorcery campaign, and Authentic Thaumaturgy was practically a necessary supplement to the game so I bought a copy while it was in print and jealously guarded it ever since. As someone who has both Authentic Thaumaturgy (published by Chaosium, so it might be helpful to bug Wizard's Attic to bring it out again) and Real Magic, I think that you can get everything you need from RM. - -- +++++++++++++++++++++++23 Loren Miller "I don't have to practice what I preach 'cause I'm not the kind of person I'm preaching to!" The Book of The Subgenius ------------------------------ From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu (Kirsten Jacobus) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 95 14:56:38 -0500 Subject: e ------------------------------ From: David Dunham (via RadioMail) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 1995 12:04:25 -0800 Subject: Re: Ray's ideas Ray said >Another option is instead of skill, simply >assume the god's probability of answering is less than 100%, and varies >with cult rank {40% for initiates, 60% for priests and acolytes, 75% for >RL's}. This would deal with the criticism of the gods always answering >without adding yet another skill to the system. This makes a certain amount of sense (though I'd make acolytes less likely to get answered than priests, and both rune levels the same). > Agreed that an elan based D.I. system would be good, but it would >also be very hard to write without referring to particular cultures and >deities ... think that should be part of the Glorantha pack. If we're >going that route, let's also borrow Glory from Pendragon Actually, you'd want to borrow personality traits from Pendragon. To use your example above, initiates might have to make all five of their religion's virtue rolls, acolytes 4, and priests or lords 3. However, I think adding personality traits to RQ would be a bad idea unless you massively simplify the system to compensate for having new rules. >RQ is deficient in >lacking anything like knighthood in Pendragon ... a secular goal to strive >for The rules may well be, but as you know, certain Gloranthan cultures do have knights. (When I first ran the PenDragon Pass campaign, I used the knight requirements to qualify as a king's housecarl. They're far easier to attain than Rune Lord.) I do like the idea of having this in the main (non-Gloranthan) rules, since it's a reasonable goal. (Note that characters who start at the RQ:AiG Expert level are probably there already.) Note that Pendragon Glory is not required for anything, it can be looked at as merely "experience points." ------------------------------ From: akuma@netcom.com (Steven E Barnes) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 1995 12:13:31 -0800 Subject: Re: Power ideas Guy writes: >The suprisingly named Steve Barnes wrote: Just in case anyone is confused, I am not Steven Barnes, the SF writer (Dream Park, etc). I am the writer of the obscure program Heromaker however. Thanks for the positive responses to my messages. The discussion is starting to drift away from RQ rules however. Possibly it should relocate to the Glorantha digest. I was actually expecting resistance, especially from Loren "I hate sorcerous fetches" Miller :-) >>If anyone can summarize those discussions, I would appreciate it. > >I believe that you were on this liast at the same time as this was >discussed, Steve. But if you can not recall or did, not read, this >train of thought I will attempt to recall it in more detail and >post a summary here. Well, I have memories of vague discussions of Wyters, but nothing that had concrete rules... If there was anything important that came out of the discussions, I must have missed it. >Sounds a bit like Existentialist Humanism to me. Have at look at >'Humanism and Existentalism' by Jean-Paul Sartre. Myself I tend >to extend myself the luxury of gods within my role-playing. My understanding is that they have no "free Will", explained as a consequence of the Compromise. As such, my non-god viewpoint is equally valid as the standard diest belief system. I'm still wavering whether the my godless approach represents the true underlying reality of Glorantha... >I can dig out the names, authors, ISBNs and publishers of some books >on the subject if you want. I can not guarantee that these will cover >Contagion but they might give you some leads. I've been skimming some of the Golden Dawn / Crowely web pages, and it is pretty dense stuff... I want something directly applicable to gaming, with a minimium of philosophical insight required :-). I'll add the Sartre to my list of things to read. It is the kind of thing I was supposed to have read in college... I seem to remember some gaming suppliment by P.I. Bonewitz, around the time RQ1 was published. "Authentic Thaumaturgy"? - -steve ------------------------------ From: akuma@netcom.com (Steven E Barnes) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 1995 12:35:31 -0800 Subject: Re: "Will"power Steve Perrin: >I do object to a new characteristic. I'd rather derive "will" from extant >stats if it is needed, or POW can't do just as well. I see POW and Hero's Ego >as being very similar, actually. I agree that POW could substitute for Will, if the rules for POW increases were changed. POW is similar to Hero's Ego, in that it is used for psychic combat. POW, as currently defined, does not represent willpower IMO. I object to HQ systems which have you doing a tax audit of your character, to determine Will after the fact. Especially since my characters end up with a puny Will score, because they are not masters of 5 dozen skills... - -steve ------------------------------ From: akuma@netcom.com (Steven E Barnes) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 1995 12:48:42 -0800 Subject: Re: Ray's ideas Dave Dunham: >> Agreed that an elan based D.I. system would be good, but it would >>also be very hard to write without referring to particular cultures and >>deities ... think that should be part of the Glorantha pack. If we're >>going that route, let's also borrow Glory from Pendragon > >Actually, you'd want to borrow personality traits from Pendragon. To use >your example above, initiates might have to make all five of their >religion's virtue rolls, acolytes 4, and priests or lords 3. However, I >think adding personality traits to RQ would be a bad idea unless you >massively simplify the system to compensate for having new rules. I think that the requirement would be the same number of rolls regardless of rank. After all, you won't get to be a Rune Lord, unless your virtues are high... By the way, assuming a score of 10 in all five virtues, the chance of rolling them all is 3%. With 15's, the chance is: 24% I'm using Pendragon virtues in my RQ game, but I am a bit vague about what they are going to be used for. I have a dim idea that they will be rolled when the PCs attempt to become Rune level... - -steve ------------------------------ From: Loren Miller Date: Fri, 17 Feb 1995 15:47:24 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Power ideas Our own Steve Barnes writes: > Thanks for the positive responses to my messages. The discussion > is starting to drift away from RQ rules however. Possibly it > should relocate to the Glorantha digest. I was actually expecting > resistance, especially from Loren "I hate sorcerous fetches" Miller :-) I think the discussion is much more appropriate here than on the glorantha digest, which is more of a rule-less forum as opposed to this rules-intensive one. And who says I hate sorcerous fetches, whatever they are? I'm a fan of the presence/vessel/whatever you call it system of Paul Reilly's. I think it's a great way to get a unified-field-theory of magic for RQ, and don't really give a damn whether it is "true" in GS's Glorantha. I think it should be true in Generic RQ, as realworld magicians all seem to believe in an alternate reality, and that their presence in the alternate reality is somehow related to their ability to cause miraculous things to happen. Sounds like the fetch/vessel/ spirit-of-god to me. To my admittedly incomplete knowledge, the only Gloranthan magic-workers who don't believe in an alternate reality are the Brithini, and possibly the Vadeli. They seem to think that the alternate reality everybody else is going on about is just a useless hallucination. This is a modern attitude that most ancient peoples would regard as monstrous. IMHO this attitude should NOT be enshrined in the rules, for it encourages players to take skeptical characters who are antithetical to what I believe to be the spirit of the RQ rules and glorantha. It seems to me that it's much more elegant and useful to make the rules for every other culture in Glorantha, and all the cultures in Alternate Earth, and then make exceptions for these two, than it is to find a universal theory for all of them at once. We already have the super-universal theory, that MPs used properly can change physical reality. Unfortunately that has no impact on roleplay whatsoever. It's too abstract. I'm a big fan of theories of reality that have an effect on roleplay, rather than context-free game rules. I'm not a big fan of adding another stat for Will, but that's a quibble of a different color. - -- +++++++++++++++++++++++23 Loren Miller "I don't have to practice what I preach 'cause I'm not the kind of person I'm preaching to!" The Book of The Subgenius ------------------------------ From: Staffan Tjernstrom <100303.141@compuserve.com> Date: 17 Feb 95 18:10:30 EST Subject: Magic - a spiritual experience? This message starts with some direct comments to RT's suggestions: << Divine magic should work by some variant of the Runepower system, where points are sacrificed but not for specific spells. >> Generally agree, but has anybody got any good ideas about how this applies to the minimaxing Issaries Goldentounge spell-trader. Also, how does this affect Truestone? Do you simply store RPs in them, or specific spells? << I also favor a channeling like skill to invoke divine magic >> To regain magic, yes, to use - NO! <<...initiates to be able to regain divine magic, but only with a ceremony performed by a priest or acolyte {and if the ceremony is fumbled they lose the points they were trying to regain}. >> Not sure about this one, especially in nomadic cultures (eg Balazar + Prax) where being an initiate = being an adult (for extreme example cf Aldrya write-up in CoP). It would mean that _everyone_ would be able to perform the miracles of the Gods! If we were to read 'Acolyte/whatever' for initiate, then I would feel a lot more comfortable with my game balance/MGF. After all, the best MGF is to be had in my mind at the bottom (roughly 30%) bracket as well as the very high (150%+) values (where you have to save the world from a fate worse than death before breakfast). <> Graeme: << Yes, I agree with this entirely. One thing I don't like about the current system is that initiates of gods almost never use the real magic of their god, but rather use the spirit magic system. Instead of Glorantha being split into spirit, divine and sorcery using cultures, it really has only two, spirit/divine and sorcery. I'd rather see initiates using _just_ divine magic, and I think Ray's system provides that.>> In reply to Ray: See above. Minimaxing will always occur, and it's every GM's right to deal with it or ignore the consequences as they feel. In reply to Graeme: Agree about the split into two cultures, but feel that battle/divine are two distinct forms (as brought out by the unfocussed on self, focussed on others arguments IMHO). Divine magic is the domain of Gods, where mortal men fear to tread (especially if they have to HQ to get the spells - which I like the idea of a lot!). <<...priest usually more of a social and political status not something everyone pushes for in the normal line of their character's development.>> Agree, which is why I liked the general 90% of time spent on temple duties idea from RQ2. It works for most cults (with some notable exceptions). It also follows that most HQ:ers will be RPs (who else cares enough something to risk their entire being?). << I want skill based invocation in the interests of stylistic consistency ... to meet the widespread criticism that in RQ the gods always answer and this is inappropriate, and to make characters in divine magic using cultures to be forced to make the same tradeoffs of normal skills vs. arcane ones that characters in sorcery and shamanistic cultures do. >> As a rule lawyer, I appreciate simplicity and stylistic consistency. As a GM/player I want MGF. Anyhow, if in my opinion the God doesn't feel like it when a player want to regain a spell, he doesn't. The tradeoff is the sacrifice of characteristic POW/MP. Yes, having an 18 POW RP means having to say your sorry to a POW 29 mini-onion of the bat. << Rune Lords should have the following advantages: a) the skills their favors should become easy, but ones their god dislikes or merely wasn't good at should become hard... b) rune lords should have access to a power pool sacrificed by others at the time of their creation {just like priests}, but addable to and regainable by, any other initiate... c) rune lords are customarily well equipped at the their cult's expense>> Hooray for RL's. However, I feel that RLs should (like initiates) only have _one use_ RuneMagic. After all, they defend at species max, have many opportunities to regain POW, and will probably be _told_ at the time of visiting a priest what RuneMagic the God deigns to give them. << RL's no longer get special DI, since this power has made divine intervention far too common. Also, this power is no longer needed.>> I'm in two minds about this. Is the real problem that RLs are far too common? ------------------------------ End of RQ Rules Digest: V1 #100 ******************************* 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.