From: owner-rq-rules-digest To: rq-rules-digest@hops.wharton.upenn.edu Subject: RQ Rules Digest: V1 #224 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, 22 May 1995 Volume 01 : Number 224 RULES OF THE ROAD 1. Do not include large sections of a message in your reply. Especially not to add "Yeah, I agree" or "No, I disagree." Or be excoriated. If someone writes something good and you want to say "good show" please do. But don't include the whole message you praise. 2. Use an appropriate Subject line. 3. Learn the art of paraphrasing: Don't just quote and comment on a point-by-point basis. When paraphrasing you demonstrate exactly how well you understand the point someone was trying to make. 4. There is no number 4. TABLE OF CONTENTS alex Mechanical Illumination :-) SPerrin@aol.com spells from a single source rstaats@mail.lmi.org Rolling for ``schtuff'' Sandy Petersen sandy opines ANDOVER@delphi.com Why rules? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: alex Date: Sun, 21 May 95 19:05:07 BST Subject: Re: Mechanical Illumination :-) In a good week for attributions, what with Bryan Maloney appearing as Bryan Maloney, and David Dunham-via-Radiomail, having dropped his double-barrel, Jonas Schiott says: > Illumination can't be handled with dice rolls. It can't? Whyever not? What's so obviously "wrong" about either of the two published "official" mechanisms, say? While they may not be by any means perfect, and are furthermore no longer Greg-Approved, consider the flipside: how can they be adequately handled through roleplaying, unless at least one of GM and player, and preferably both, are themselves Transendentally Aware (as we've hypothesised Illumination is about). > If the GM thinks a certain player can handle playing an > illuminate, and it won't disrupt the rest of the campaign, go ahead and do > it (but don't make it too easy for the character). This last is that rub, isn't it? Unless you want to make Illumination near-automatic for any character whose player can play such in your own judgement, then some quasi-arbitrary mechanism is needed to as a precondition, even if informal, or entirely inside the GM's head. Otherwise, we're reduced to "You're Illuminated due to Plot Device or GM Whim". What I would certainly agree with is that it would be Bad if some mechanism "forced" a GM into letting a character be Illuminated in the teeth of inappropriate character behaviour or player inability. But that's just belabouring the obvious, I'd have thought. Alex. ------------------------------ From: SPerrin@aol.com Date: Sun, 21 May 1995 15:45:04 -0400 Subject: Re: spells from a single source Simon Lee posited some thoughts on 95-05-07 that I have been cogitating on for some time. I realize now that I don't know what tables he is using for Range and Intensity? I published the ones I'm using in April. Let's look at how they define some old established divine magic. My RQ3 copies of the divine spells are too far away to justify taking the time to go get them, so forgive the use of COP (1st edition--if that means anything) for my examples. Using the Cults of Prax version of Sunspear, this spell would be Range 3 (line of sight) and Intensity 12 (2d12, equivalent to the original 4d6). It would also have a volume of 1 (one whole body). This means that a 3 point Divine Magic has the equivalent of 14 levels of Sorcery. From the same source, we have Truesword, a one point spell. By the table I published (which I'm not happy with) it would have a Duration of 4, a volume of 0, an Intensity of 4 (1d8) and a range of 0. Thus, a 1 point spell is equivalent of 8 points of Sorcery. Orlanth's Teleportation, a 3 point spell, has a duration of 0 (instant), a range of 4 (indirect), a volume of 1 (whole body) and an Intensity of 6 (for SIZ 18 body). This is only 11 points of Sorcery for a 3 point divine magic. Of course, the original descriptions of these spells were made by gut, without any system of creation. Perhaps they should be left this way, and new divine spells created with arbitrary POW costs. Any comments? Steve Perrin ------------------------------ From: rstaats@mail.lmi.org Date: Mon, 22 May 95 08:57:48 EST Subject: Rolling for ``schtuff'' Greetings! Whether the individual GM actually rolls for various events or not, there should be provisions in the mechanics for doing so. If nothing else, it provides the GM with some kind of feel for how likely such an event is in the base game. As to what to roll for when, during my fourteen years of active GMing, I almost always threw the dice, but I did not always tell the players what the rolls were. Gasp! There were many a time when the rolls were fudged in the players' favor. Reference player rolls, only let the players roll something if you are prepared to deal with the consequences. For example, having an illuminated player has fairly grave ramifications in most campaigns, and the GM should not be bullied into allowing it on a player whim. This applies equally well to bad things which can happen to the character as well. There are times when neither the party, the player or the GM are prepared to deal with the consequences of a particular PC's untimely death. Just my $.02 Rich Staats ------------------------------ From: Sandy Petersen Date: Mon, 22 May 95 10:54:25 -0500 Subject: Re: sandy opines The question has come up, "Why roll for cult initiation or rune status? Why roll for DIs? Why roll for anything?" Here is why: if every crucial important step in a player's life is chosen by the gamemaster (as opposed to being rolled), then every time the player fails to achieve one of his goals, he will know it is because the gamemaster decided against him. Sometimes it's nice to be able to hide behind the dice. If the campaign is set up such that "normally" you roll dice to determine cult membership, etc., then when a player tries to join a cult if you tell him that you're not going to bother to roll because he killed the Black Buffalo and donated the hide to the priest's daughter, so you're just going to let him into the cult regardless, then you get to be a good guy, not a bad guy. Or if you point out, "Well, you have to remember that the shaman still bears a grudge against you for boffing his daughter." and then roll the dice, and _then_ tell him (even if he succeeded) that the villainous shaman (or whoever) is blackballing him, then the _shaman_, not you, is the bad guy. Even if (as in my campaign) the vast majority of cult initiations are done by GM fiat, _not_ dice rolls, I think it is best for the supposed norm to be a dice roll. If you never roll dice for a cult promotion, talking about the black buffalo or the shaman's grudge echoes hollowly. It doesn't seem like a special occasion. >Why roll for DI's? Because sometimes you don't care whether the DI happens or not, and so why not let the dice decide? The players don't mind, I've found. If you really really care about it, you can always think up reasons why it won't or will work. >Why have rules for illumination So that you can figure out how likely it is that NPCs in a given culture are illuminated. Ditto for DI's, really. You don't have to use the rules for players to _have_ rules in the first place. If you know that illumination is normally a five-year process of constant training, then you know illuminates are not thick as fleas. ------------------------------ From: ANDOVER@delphi.com Date: Mon, 22 May 1995 21:14:51 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Why rules? I realize that some of you genius GMs do everything without reference to the rule books, but I wonder if we need regular statements from you that you don't need rules; if you don't, why are you on the list? Just tell your players that you plan on doing anything you damn well please. On the other hand, I wonder if the reason for die rolls on such things as Divine Intervention don't protect the GM rather than limit him/her. "Sorry, I just decided that your character was dead." Good luck, folks! Jim Chapin ------------------------------ End of RQ Rules Digest: V1 #224 ******************************* 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. WWW material at http://hops.wharton.upenn.edu/~loren/rolegame.html