From: owner-rq-rules-digest To: rq-rules-digest@hops.wharton.upenn.edu Subject: RQ Rules Digest: V1 #128 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, 7 March 1995 Volume 01 : Number 128 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. 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 Reusable initiate Runepower ANDOVER@delphi.com Overpowering magic David Dunham via RadioMail simple <> easy; Rune Power; Pointless Syst David Cake Overpowering magic Steven E Barnes simple <> easy; Rune Power; Pointless Syst Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox. Vanir and Aesir Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox. Reusable initiate Runepower Liam_McCauley@qsp.co.uk Fantasy Earth Colin Watson Reusable initiate Runepower Mike Cule More Sorcery Idiocy: Familiars ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPerrin@aol.com Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 00:22:54 -0500 Subject: Re: Reusable initiate Runepower Steve Barnes has some interesting ideas about whether Rune Power from one deity can be used for another's spells... Part of the final result will depend, I guess, on whether we go with (1) Worshippers just sacrifice POW which goes into a Pool and it can be called on to perform any spell or (2) Worshippers sacrifice POW for the Pool and must also learn the spells, but can call on the POW to fuel any of the spells known for as long as there is POW in the Pool to draw on. The first case implies that there is some central Mana Pool that all the gods draw on and put the POW that is sacrificed to them. Worshippers have an "account" at the Mana Pool and as long as they have put POW in, they can withdraw in the currency of whatever gods they have sacrificed to. So a point each sacrificed to the Elf God, the Troll God, the Wind God and the Sun God allows for the Worshipper to use a 4-point Spell from any one of the gods. This is an extreme case, of course. There could be any number of limitations placed on this approach and still keep its basic nature. The second case would imply that each god has a separate Pool (or, to use Steve Barnes' idea, each "Rune" has a separate Pool) and only the POW sacrificed to that Pool can be used to call on spells from that particular god. And, of course, these could each be special cases of the overall metasystem. Steve Perrin ------------------------------ From: ANDOVER@delphi.com Date: Tue, 07 Mar 1995 00:27:58 -0500 (EST) Subject: Overpowering magic One aspect of Runequest that has always beena bit problematic to me is that it is a very magic-heavy system. Everyone is walking around with magic, which makes the RQ version, frex, of Thieves World less accurate than the AD & D version! Now what appears to be a desire for the Runepower system, which makes divine magic much more powerful, a desire to give iniatites more and more reusable divine magic, a desire to make sorcery more powerful, although the sorceror in Strangers in Prax can essentailly steal anything or kill from a thousand miles away! Greg is already stating the older versions of RQ overstate the magic in Glorantha; my impression from GMing the Viking adventures was that magic was somewhat too powerful for the campaign world. Is this new, fancy, improved RQ just an excuse for the worst kind of powergaming hidden behind the (obligatory) anti AD & D rhetoric? Just a nasty question! Jim Chapin ------------------------------ From: David Dunham (via RadioMail) Date: Mon, 6 Mar 1995 22:00:59 -0800 Subject: Re: simple <> easy; Rune Power; Pointless Systems Jonas Schiott wrote >there is the Resistance Roll, but the math for that is so simple you don't >need a table I do. Despite having taken math up through matrix algebra, I find the Resistance Roll really hard to use in RQ. Perhaps this is because the GM usually doesn't tell you the opposing value (usually POW). So if you have POW 11 and roll 42, you have to figure out "I beat a POW of 12." It always slows me down. Alas, RQ3 has some really elegant but horrible-to-use rules, like the training system. What could be simpler than training for hours=skill? But in our games, we often had weeks-long training time available. If you have 100 hours, how much can your skill increase? (Made harder by the increase being random, therefore you might well want to roll each time.) Steve Perrin thought >with respect to David Cheng, it occurs to me that we need a differe >nt term than Rune _Power_, just to avoid confustion with the attribute of >POWer. I don't think so, after all Rune Power is POW sacrificed to cast rune spells. Calling it Rune Pool would be too game-speak. (Reservoir is the best I could do with a quick pass at a thesaurus.) >Since RQ is the game that doesn't use experience points, then why have things >like hit points and magic points? It certainly quantifies many things numerically. And given that you want a system of cumulative wounds, HP seems like the most straightforward way to go. > Damage up to and including the Threshold does some kind of temporary >damage, perhaps alleviated with a CON roll. Multiples of the Threshold do >more lasting damage, up to and including instant death to the vital areas. >However, there is no checking off of hit points; this at least makes the >character sheet less messy. So how would one keep track of this temporary damage, if not marking off hit points? >I also suggested a magic system that didn't involve the >subtraction of Magic Points but instead called for successful POW or Magic >Skill rolls or inability to cast or (in case of fumbles) loss of magic >ability as expressed in reduced POW or some other function. I dropped out of an Earthdawn campaign largely because they use a magic system like this. The net effect is that the spellcasters can cast powerful spells all day. If you're not a spell caster, you better like being a spear-carrier. (You can guess which I ended up as...) Altho I heard that the last session, the mage fumbled, and the party nearly got wiped out. So while I haven't directly tested Steve's idea, I feel comfortable extrapolating that I don't like it. >I believe that the individual becomes associated with the runes of >his god. If he happens to worship a god with overlapping runes, >then the points in common can be used for either diety, even if they >have absolutely zero mythic associations. It's hard to imagine that my Humakt Rune Power can be used to cast Yelm or Lhankor Mhy spells. ------------------------------ From: davidc@cs.uwa.edu.au (David Cake) Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 14:36:06 +0800 Subject: Re: Overpowering magic >One aspect of Runequest that has always beena bit problematic to me >is that it is a very magic-heavy system. I have heard RQ referred to as a low-magic system as well! It is really more of a magic median - the average person has more magic than almost every other game (in that the average person has any magic at all), but the most powerful (at least the most powerful described within the rules) are not as powerful as the high levels from other games. > Now what appears to be a desire for the >Runepower system, which makes divine magic much more powerful, a desire >to give iniatites more and more reusable divine magic, a desire to make >sorcery more powerful, although the sorceror in Strangers in Prax can >essentailly steal anything or kill from a thousand miles away! People have already stated that Runepower fixes something that isn't broken - and I agree with them. But as has been repeatedly stated on this list, we are investigating ideas, not shooting them down yet. When it comes time to shoot them down, Runepower is in my sights - I think it changes game balance far more radically than most people imagine, especially in high power games. But I am happy for people to discuss it. Initiates is more a question of reviving a seldom used mechanic. 1-use magic is used extremely rarely. For a pious initiate it should be a little more common. And as for sorcery - the idea is to make the power curve of sorcery better fit the power curve of other types of magic. Currently sorcerers are extremely underpowered for a long time, then begin growing in power in leaps and bounds until they are more powerful than almost everybody (like Arlaten). Sorcery would be considered 'fixed' if apprentices were roughly as powerful as experienced spirit magic users, and experienced adepts as powerful as experienced priests or shamans (roughly). This means we need to make sorcery more powerful at the low end, and less powerful at the high end. The most discussed option for the latter is the Presence/Vessell system, created by Paul Reilly, which replaces the exponential duration of RQ3 with a linear dependence on available POW. But sorcery still needs to be made a bit more powerful at low power levels. The RQAIG solution is to make many simple useful spells easy skills, so at least peasants from sorcerous cultures can cast some weak magic with a comparable chance of success to a spirit using initiate. Also, note that RQAIG rewrote many spell descriptions quite a lot from RQ3 - and the general concensus was that almost every change was to weaken sorcery, sometimes to the point of silliness (i.e. sorcerers avoided Tap Str/Con/Siz/Dex not because they were evil, but because they were less efficient than the easier to learn Enhance spells). Calls to make sorcery more powerful may be a continueing reaction against what was seen as a decision by the RQAIG Triumvirate to weaken sorcery. >is already stating the older versions of RQ overstate the magic in >Glorantha; my impression from GMing the Viking adventures was that >magic was somewhat too powerful for the campaign world. I found that magic was sometimes a bit too powerful for an earth campaign, thoug sometimes OK. I found that the most anachronistic was Healing, and I have decided to move to the 'Healsharp' scheme (ie healing acts similarly to Bladesharp for your first aid skill), which allows you to use healing to save PC lives, but prevents healing in mid battle as often happens in Gloranthan games. Cheers David ------------------------------ From: akuma@netcom.com (Steven E Barnes) Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 00:04:38 -0800 Subject: Re: simple <> easy; Rune Power; Pointless Systems David Dunham: >>I believe that the individual becomes associated with the runes of >>his god. If he happens to worship a god with overlapping runes, >>then the points in common can be used for either diety, even if they >>have absolutely zero mythic associations. > >It's hard to imagine that my Humakt Rune Power can be used to cast Yelm or >Lhankor Mhy spells. The Humakti can use his MP to cast battle magic of other gods... In fact, it would be rather hard to become an initiate of such different gods in the first place (unless you are illuminated, in which case, my idea makes perfect sense). Anyway, the idea is that only the Truth rune portion (in the case of Humakt, 1/3 of the pool) can be shared with Lhankor Mhy spells) What I am really doing is giving the character separate pools of "flavored" mana. To cast a Humakt Detect Truth spell would require 1 point of Truth rune, for example. Hey, I said I was a heretic... - -steve ------------------------------ From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 00:35:47 PST Subject: Re: Vanir and Aesir Received: by eccles.wgc.rx.xerox.com (4.1/SMI-4.0) id AA01840; Tue, 7 Mar 95 08:35:32 GMT Bryan wrote: >Actually, the question of Vanir and Aesir is a specific instance of something >that the general _RuneQuest_ rules should touch on (and possibly Loren's >"Mythopoet's Manual" should get into in detail). Thanks for responding to this. Your response, for which I had to reach for the dictionary a couple of times, was interesting. Following the mailing list`s rules I have not quited them here. >Basically, how do you deal with potentially thousands of years of cultural >evolution that happens before your game starts without getting overwhelmed >in the details? I have said this before with regard to RuneQuest but there is a lot to be learnt from the better superhuman genere, where English writers have taken blank slates and created a perception of depth and continuity. A good example is Alan Moore`s Watchman series. For this series Alan had planned to use the newly acquired Chalton (sp?) characters but DC vetoed this as most of the characters died or retired in his script. So he wiped the slate clean and refurnished the plot with its own fake continuity, including a whole alternate world that had been affected by the presence of superhumen and caped crusaders. Its an excellent comic that gives a considered approach to the superhuman genre. I always recommend that people start with the big picture, decide on the direction, the texture and the mood. With these broad brush strokes, ensure yourself that you can run such a game by performing mythic dry runs that suit these backgrounds. Good fantastic ideas can often be found in reality rather than from other pieces of fantasy writing. Examples of this are the infestation of Christmas Island by hoards of red land crabs, the fall from grace of Ra through alledged senility during the days of ancient Egypt and those crazy claims that the Celts where the lost tribe of Israel. With this ground work laid the old RPG trick of only defining as much as you need to start of with can occurr. You do not need to know the ultimate truths of your world, just what the perceptions of the characters within it are. To give fake continuity you might need to detail population migrations or older configurations of the local pantheon with accompanying explanations and implications. I hope this provides an examination of the apect of question you threw in for debate. Guy Robinson ------------------------------ From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 01:27:57 PST Subject: Re: Reusable initiate Runepower Received: by eccles.wgc.rx.xerox.com (4.1/SMI-4.0) id AA01882; Tue, 7 Mar 95 09:27:42 GMT Steve wrote: >Assuming that Demeter and Isis are, indeed, separate goddesses from >separate pantheons with similar abilities, could an initiate of both >combine his/her Rune Power pools to do heavier Rune Magic? There are a lot of answers to this question from a gaming perspective and I must admit that I am fairly keen about Steve Barnes' humanist approach where the Runes of the Divine Magic pools determine how much can be shared. It has a satisfying internal logic. I would be keen to go for a perception and devotional approach, which I think is apropriate for religions that can offer demonstrable proof of their existence, rather than belief. For although the godess might have the same properties they are wrapped up in very different cultures and styles of magic. It would be wholely appropriate for a character to not release that these godesses' Divine Magic pools could be combined. Look at Bushido, the game, where it is possible to reconcile Shinto and Buddhism only after completing a religious treatise. This might provide an answer for such a question. There are also the issues of dominion as raised by Ars Arcana as prehaps Divine Pools only work where their gods are worshipped or only function at full power there. The whole question of applying RQ to the Ancient World is an issue that I would prefer to research to answer properly. ------------------------------ From: Liam_McCauley@qsp.co.uk Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 10:31:10 -0000 Subject: Re: Fantasy Earth Guy Hoyle said: "I think that one of my favorite things about RuneQuest when I first bought it in 1979 was that it got away from the "generic medieval" settings emphasized by the other big games of the day. Why not put out an "ancient empires" setting for the Mediterranean area? You could have Mycenaean Greece, ancient Egypt, the Hittites, the Phoenicians, proto- Celts, Amazons, etc. AND you'd avoid the thorny problem of offending modern-day Christians, Muslims, etc." Hugh Foster countered: ">> ..to swallow comfortably. why are most non-rq games based in western medieval myth? because, frankly, most of us are raised with it, are comfortable with it, and can all enjoy a common fantasy imagining without 55 pages of background material explaining the culture. << Amen! Just what I was trying to say! (Sorry Loren!)" There seem to be some people that are attracted to playing in a psuedo-medieval background because it's familiar, and some that like to play in ancient or other settings because it's not. Surely one of the advantages of producing a generic FRPG is that source packs could be produced for *both* kinds of settings. Personally, I would be looking for something different from the standard medieval inspired setting, because I have tons of role playing games / supplements for this setting already. I suppose what comes out will depend on what AH think will sell. Of course, there is the question of whether the "generic" rules will use a specific setting / period to add colour to any examples in the main rule book. Cheers, Liam ------------------------------ From: Colin Watson Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 12:18:01 GMT Subject: Re: Reusable initiate Runepower Graeme A Lindsell replied to Steve Perrin: > > > Oh, and with respect to David Cheng, it occurs to me that we need a > >different term than Rune _Power_, just to avoid confustion with the > >attribute of POWer. > > I would even be inclined to take the word "Rune" out of it as well. I > prefer "Divine Magic" to "Rune Magic", as the initiate usually believes > they are getting the magic from their god, rather than a philosophical > symbol. For this very reason I'd prefer to steer clear of labelling it "Divine". It implies that this brand of magic is only available through the intervention of a God. If we're talking generic RQ then I think we should leave "Divine Magic" open to humanists/atheists too. Maybe Rune Points instead of Rune Power. This contrasts with Magic Points where the spells are fuelled from within the caster; Rune Points would be used to fuel spells by drawing power from the caster's environment (or "God", depending on your beliefs). ___ BTW is this new RQ going to have methods for inventing/developing/discovering *new* spells? This something that's been lacking in previous editions. ___ CW. ------------------------------ From: Mike Cule Date: Tue, 07 Mar 95 12:38:10 GMT Subject: More Sorcery Idiocy: Familiars Thanks to Steve Perrin for his comments on my Shapechanging proposals. (My word, you get a better class of ego-boost on this list!) With that encouragement I'd like to return to something I have ranted about before: familiars. The following is reproduced from an article in ALARUMS AND EXCURSIONS a couple of years back. (Around the time of the *last* RQ rewrite.) ***************** The worst botch in the Sorcery Rules introduced in RQ3 is the way Familiars are created. It comes (I think) from not thinking about the way the rules system (however excellently balanced) affects the way the characters view the world. Imagine the following: "I am a Sorcerer. My Intelligence is my weapon and my tool, my way of dominating my surroundings and my fellow creatures. Now in order to acquire the undoubted advantages of having a familiar you are asking me to reduce my own Intelligence and give it to the familiar. Each step of Intelligence that I loose halves my effectiveness as a Sorcerer. Why are Sorcerers depicted as using mortal animals as Familiars (as Niklos' master Naws is shown using a goat)? Any Intelligence he sacrificed is gone forever when the Familiar dies. " "And it will die. Presumably my Immortality spells won't affect the Familiar. If I try to use one of the immortal and insubstantial beings (such as the wraith Niklos thinks about using) then I am arguably in worse case since I am giving up bits of my physical body and will eventually dwindle away to nothing. I have known one sorcerer who made a Mummy his familiar and another who allied with a Lamia. (Not a nice fellow that last!) All to avoid diminishing a person's most precious attributes. No not his soul, (your soul can be regrown). Your Mind and your Body!" SO TRY THIS INSTEAD: A familiar is a complete being created from an incomplete one. To give a familiar full being the Sorcerer sacrifices a number of points of POW according to the following table: STR 2 POW per point. CON 2 POW per point. SIZ 5 POW per point. INT 3 POW per point. POW 1 POW per point. (1) DEX 2 POW per point. (1) Maximum POW for a creature previously without a soul is (1d6 per 3 POW transferred) + 1. A sorcerer is vulnerable whenever his familiar dies. At the instant of the Sorcerer's death his CON will be attacked by the Familiar's Hit Points as if by a poison. (This explains why most Sorcerers choose small familiars such as cats.) Sorcerers often choose to release obviously ill familiars. ****************************** One of my players commented that this proposal is like making Create Familiar the inverse of Tap. (By the way, if we're going to loose fatigue points in RQ4, Tap needs lookng at too. Couldn't we make the benefit to the sorcerer Permanent POW? Much more of a temptatation...(Heh, heh)) Mike Cule ------------------------------ End of RQ Rules Digest: V1 #128 ******************************* 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.