From: owner-rq-rules-digest To: rq-rules-digest@hops.wharton.upenn.edu Subject: RQ Rules Digest: V1 #142 Reply-To: rq-rules Errors-To: owner-rq-rules-digest Precedence: bulk Content-Return: Prohibited Return-Path: owner-rq-rules-digest RQ Rules Digest: Monday, 13 March 1995 Volume 01 : Number 142 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 Graeme A Lindsell Who's a Sorcerer and Runepower problems Tim Leask Power and MP Graeme A Lindsell Power and MP David Dunham via RadioMail +5%/MP; Rune Power Nils Weinander RunePower Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox. A Constraint for RunePower Loren Miller Divine cit Loren Miller Disrupting walls, etc David Dunham via RadioMail Malia spells Gregory C. Walsh shaman details ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Graeme A Lindsell Date: Mon, 13 Mar 1995 13:29:28 +1000 (EST) Subject: Re: Who's a Sorcerer and Runepower problems Graeme Lindsell here replying to David Cake: > Or to put it another way, the problem with RunePower is it requires > you to put in arbitrary limitations, like stacking limits on divine spells, > in order to not get out of hand. There have already been some suggestions on how to handle some of these problems. I accept that David Cheng's original suggestion has problems, but I think with some of these suggestions, and another I'm going to make here, Runepower becomes a superior system to the base RQ3 system. [An aside here: to whoever asked, no I don't think Divine magic isn't powerful enough, I think it's so inflexible that the great cost of buying divine magic is more than these spells are worth, especially for initiates when spells were one use, and even for priests after they've got a decent enchant.] The suggestion has already been made that the Runepower system should still require the sacrifice for specific spells, but once a spell has been learned, it can be cast by any of the points in the pool. I prefer the method that points sacrificed for spells should add to the pool rather than they should be bought separately, so an example Orlanthi character may have sacrificed for 5 spells as follows: Shield 1, Spirit Block 1, Heal Wound 1, Fly 1 and Lightning 1. He would now have a 5 point Rune power pool, and be able to use any of these points to cast the spells Shield, Spirit Block, Heal Wound, Fly and Lightning, as and when he wants to cast them. My suggestion deals with the definition of stackable spells in a Runepower system. As it stands now, this example character could use those 5 points to cast (say) Shield 5 or Fly 5, which would be effects way too powerful for a character of this kind of experience. I would chanage the effects of stackability as follows: "Stackable" means that you can purchase the spell at different effect levels, not that you can buy multiple low value spells and then add them together to make one high value spells. IE if the example character buys shield 1 that's what he's bought, the ability to cast shield one. If he wants the ability to cast Shield 5 he has to sacrifice 5 points of power at once to get the spell. So my example character can cast Shield 1, Fly 1, Spirit Block 1 or Lightning 1, up to 5 uses of each, or up to 5 uses of the non-stackable Heal Wound, or any combination of the above. What he can't do is cast Lightning 5, Shield 5 or any of the other gross 5 point spells that standard Runepower allows. This would easily fit on the current character sheet, with each cult the character has joined having the Runepower pool at the top followed by the list of spells the character has sacrificed for. I came to the conclusion that this was needed during my current RQ3 campaign, which consists of a party of rune levels. There is a character in the party who has sacrificed for 5 points of shield, each point bought separately as a one POW sacrifice. In some battles, especially where a templte is known to be nearby, this Wood Lord has cast Shield 5, giving effective immunity to non-critical damage and offensive combat magic. This is an effect qualitatively as well as quantitatively different to 5 separate castings of Shield 1: the first means you don't have to bother dodging anymore, and can wade in a dozen enemies with only fear of criticals; the second means you get an edge in 5 separate fights, no more. This current campaign doesn't use a Runepower system btw. I've also come to the conclusion that some form of stacking limit is needed for spirit magic as well. After playing these characters for 3 years straight they all have an enormous list of spirit magic spells, in matrices as well as allied spirits. This isn't a problem in itself, it's when a character uses this opportunity to empty his own mind and learn Bladesharp 8, and Protection 6. This obviously isn't a problem at the low initiate level, but it's got to the point here that we're winning battles mainly through gross skill enhancing spirit magic, rather than high skills or divine magic. - -- Graeme Lindsell a.k.a Graeme.Lindsell@anu.edu.au Research School of Chemistry, Australian National University ------------------------------ From: Tim Leask Date: Mon, 13 Mar 1995 15:42:59 +1100 (EST) Subject: Power and MP Steve Barnes and others raised several interesting ideas with regard to POW and POW gain. So I figured now was the time to repeat my humble views on the matter. I suggest the following changes 1. POW becomes a sort of spiritual CON or hit points. 2. No POW gain rolls. 3. POW increases through training/research or by exotic magical means only. 4. No species max for POW. 5. POW is damaged by various rituals, such as item enchantment, sacrificing for divine magic and by divine intervention. 6. Damaged POW will (super?)naturally heal at a point per year. The rate could be increased for acolytes, and rune levels. Exotic items and magics could increase this rate also. POW will heal to previous MAX POW (n.b. The healing rate can easily be adjusted up or down to accomodate various levels of magic and different campaign worlds) The advantage of this system is that there is no POW check frenzy, and no incentive to keep your POW low. Make POW trainable also brings it in to line with other stats. example: Harry the Hoplite has a POW of 15 which has never been damaged ipso facto his MAX POW is 15. During an encouter with Sartarite rebels he is forced to D.I. His POW is "damaged" by the blast of divine energy as his call for aid is heard. Harry survives the encounter but his POW is "damaged" and reduced to 7. Harry's POW will gradually "heal" until it reaches 15 (his MAX POW). With regards to magic points - these could be based on MAX POW (justification:Once a MP conduit is establish via POW it can only increase in size not diminish) - OR - they can be based on current POW (justification: A MP conduit requires POW to keep it open, a reduction in POW reduces the size of the conduit.) OR you could introduce a new STAT. With regards to casting spells on others I'd like to see this as a MP vs POW or a POW vs POW contest. No-one liked this idea last time I posted, but maybe some of you have mellowed after seeing some of the other off-the-wall suggestions. Cheers, Tim ================================================================================ Department of Computer Science /*\__/\ "Anyone can hold the helm when University of Melbourne < \ the sea is calm." Parkville, Vic., 3052, AUSTRALIA \ _ _/ -- Publilius Syrus Phone: +61 3 282 2439 \| -- e-mail: tsl@cs.mu.oz.au ================================================================================ ------------------------------ From: Graeme A Lindsell Date: Mon, 13 Mar 1995 16:10:38 +1000 (EST) Subject: Re: Power and MP Graeme Lindsell replying to Time Leask > So I figured now was the time to repeat my humble > views on the matter. Someone posted similar humble views a month or so back, but I don't think it was you = some else out there agrees! I agree with the basic idea, but have some other views on the fine points of the concept > > I suggest the following changes > 2. No POW gain rolls. > 3. POW increases through training/research or by exotic magical means only. A suggestion as to some of the "exotic" methods: the act of becoming a priest/rune lord/king etc has the effect of increasing POW by some value, as one becomes a centre of the worship of your society. (Most kings have a sacred aspect). How big this is should depend on how important you are to the society, so a priest of a minor temple might get one or two points, the highest priest of a kingdom up to 10, or more. This seem appropriate to Glorantha, maybe not so much in a generic system. Yes, this does mean some NPCs will be running around with POWs of 30+. I think this is appropriate to Glorantha, where god-kings like the Red Emperor and Argrath seem to have much higher POW than ordinary mortals. > 4. No species max for POW. I'm not sure whether to keep an original POWx1.5 as a limit on trained POW or not. To do so would keep the rules acress the stats uniform, and it would make some people born to be powerful while others would never be. Perhaps a generic system should use the x1.5, but it would be removed for Glorantha. > 6. Damaged POW will (super?)naturally heal at a point per year. The > rate could be increased for acolytes, and rune levels. Exotic items and > magics could increase this rate also. I prefer a healing rate of Max Pow/10 per year, rounded to nearest integer, with a minumum of 1 ie, you go from one point per year to 2 at 15 POW. It introduces a breakpoint I know. > > With regards to magic points - these could be based on MAX POW > (justification:Once a MP conduit is establish via POW it can only increase > in size not diminish) - OR - they can be based on current POW > (justification: A MP conduit requires POW to keep it open, a reduction > in POW reduces the size of the conduit.) I would prefer to base it on current POW, or what is the disadvantage to reduction in POW? > With regards to casting spells on others I'd like to see this as a > MP vs POW or a POW vs POW contest. I used POW vs. POW in my Dorastor campaign, which used a Pendragon Pass variant. The major difference was that people would use most of their personal MPs to cast spells a lot more often. I'm not sure this is a disadvantage, but other people think so. - -- Graeme Lindsell a.k.a Graeme.Lindsell@anu.edu.au Research School of Chemistry, Australian National University ------------------------------ From: David Dunham (via RadioMail) Date: Sun, 12 Mar 1995 22:23:11 -0800 Subject: Re: +5%/MP; Rune Power Bruce Mason writes >I've been using for a long time the simple rules >that you can spend MPs to increase cast chance. Each extra MP gives >+5%. Once again, this is a bad deal unless you're really pressed for time. If I am POW 10, I'm 50% to cast, say, Fireblade (a 4-point spell). If I fail the first time, I lose one point and cast it again, at 50% chance. The chance of missing both rolls is only 25%, so my chance has increased to 75% - -- +25%. It's true that time to cast is longer -- (DEX SR + 4) * 2 instead of (DEX SR + 4 + 1?). But I get 20% greater chance of success, and I use at most 5 MP, same as your system. On average, I use 4.5 MP, and the average time spent is (DEX SR + 4) * 1.5. If I try to cast a 1 point spell, perhaps Disrupt to get a POW check, the average time casting twice is only (DEX SR + 1) * 1.5, probably about 2 extra SR on average. If you play that the skill-enhancing MP counts against the MP in the spell, then I've traded 1 SR for 20% increased odds. I'd never take "advantage" of your rule. I recommend changing your house rule to +10% per MP at the very least. Kevin Rose warns of the dangers of Runepower being used to cast really large variable spells. I'd been wavering towards Runepower (with spell learning), but Kevin has convinced me to stick with individual sacrifices. Unlike Steve Barnes, I don't think there should be arbitrary limits on spells. ------------------------------ From: niwe@ppvku.ericsson.se (Nils Weinander) Date: Mon, 13 Mar 95 08:38:01 +0100 Subject: RunePower Kevin Rose: >Well, lets look at how much sacrificed POW the average RL will likely >have. Assume they get one check per three weeks, plus the holy days >(seems resonable to me, anyway). This is ~18 checks per year. The >average increase per check is .3 per (at 15 POW) so the average amount per >year is 1+5.4 or 6.4 pts per year. A check every three weeks?!?? That sounds awfully high, but let's go with it. Assume then that the RL on the average does 1 divine intervention each year, burning an average of 5.5 points POW. Now we have 6.4 - 5.5 giving 0.9 POW / year. I don't see that as particularly bad. /Nils W ------------------------------ From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com Date: Mon, 13 Mar 1995 00:49:27 PST Subject: A Constraint for RunePower Well I like the RunePower system but I can see that it does need some constraint. Fortunately I may have a solution to hand that I suggested for another use during the old RQ4 playtest. How about you can only cast a RunePower spell to a limit of your Pow divided by 3? Hence someone with a Pow of 21 could only cast Fly 7 in one go, for example. This could stop possibly gross abuses. This would encourage a person with access to a RunePool not to sacrifice all his Power into it. It also provides a reasonable constraint as you can only "will" the casting of a certain size of magic, unless you are able to get some external aid. ------------------------------ From: Loren Miller Date: Mon, 13 Mar 1995 11:11:37 -0500 (EST) Subject: Divine cit Divine magic is Divine magic, whether in an atheistic society or a theistic one. The word "divine" does not require there to be active, intelligent, "gods" out there who require mortals to worship them and give out spells as prizes. Divine magic only requires belief in a superior or perfect being which could be external or internal. You could just as easily say that each person can develop their own "divine" self inseparable from their normal self. As for those who are using the USSR as a counter-example: The USSR was not really an atheistic society, despite anti-religious propaganda. The USSR tried to create a new religion on the model of the Russian Orthodox Church with the communist party as the priesthood, Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, etc, as martyred saints, and the proletariat as God. They even kept the same old high holy places in the Kremlin. - -- +++++++++++++++++++++++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: Loren Miller Date: Mon, 13 Mar 1995 11:23:30 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Disrupting walls, etc I think that inanimate things SHOULD have POW ratings but that a POW of 3 is too low for the world. POW 3 is more like a minimum POW, the POW that a pebble would have. Rather, I think that POW accumulates proportional to size (or mass or cross-section or something like that) in things as a matter of course. The world, as a living gaiea, must have a POW in the hundreds or thousands, even higher than the Crimson Bat. Think of the goddess Glorantha or Arachne Solara. Any spell to affect the entire earth must overcome all its POW. Big old trees, dinosaurs, and other huge things should also have high POW because they should be hard for magic to affect. People who say that this requires us to change the POW check mechanism are right. One thing that I liked was the POW check mechanism from Magic World. Though I don't remember it all that well, I believe that long-term changes in the world as a result of magic were just as deserving of a POW check as blasting someone with a disrupt spell. In MW this was mostly "wall of x" spells, but there's no reason to keep this restriction in RQ. Note for farmers etc: One important corollary ability is the ability to define boundaries to smaller bits so that you don't have to overcome quite as much POW. Terminus is the god who did this in Rome. - -- +++++++++++++++++++++++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: David Dunham (via RadioMail) Date: Mon, 13 Mar 1995 08:46:54 -0800 Subject: Malia spells We had some confusion tonight when the GM handed me Lords of Terror to find out if my character had to make CON * 5 rolls or what when he'd been hit by Soul Waste from a Malia priestess. The GM had been using the description in Gods of Glorantha: Cause Soul Waste is stackable, and a 4 point spell gives the terminal disease. In LoT, it's a 2 point spell which summons a random Spirit of Disease. (Random as in 3d6, or can it be more powerful? Nothing says.) This is in effect a combined Summon and Command. Priests already get Command Disease Spirit, and while they don't get Summon Disease Spirit, they are shamans, and can get disease spirits in the usual shamanic ways. Given that they're shamans, using a 2 point rune spell makes little sense - -- shamans can sic disease spirits on you for at most the cost of a spirit magic Control Disease Spirit spell. The consensus of our gaming group was that the Gods of Glorantha spell description was better. ------------------------------ From: "Gregory C. Walsh" Date: Mon, 13 Mar 1995 11:51:40 -0500 Subject: shaman details I second the request for Shamanism details, if anyone has worked out a few. I have a couple of alternates - but I am leary of them since only one of my players has ever gone that route. I might be getting another this spring, though. I have made a few changes in the spirit magic system. No one is complaining much either mainly because only 2 out of my 5 players are experienced RQ'ers. The others are D&Ders, like most of the world. So what is the state of the art in shamanism? Greg ------------------------------ End of RQ Rules Digest: V1 #142 ******************************* 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.