From: owner-rq-rules-digest To: rq-rules-digest@hops.wharton.upenn.edu Subject: RQ Rules Digest: V1 #243 Reply-To: rq-rules Errors-To: owner-rq-rules-digest Precedence: bulk Content-Return: Prohibited Return-Path: owner-rq-rules-digest RQ Rules Digest: Saturday, 3 June 1995 Volume 01 : Number 243 TABLE OF CONTENTS David Dunham shamans Loren Miller Fatigue Curtis Shenton Shamans healing Bryan Maloney Shamans healing kchrist1@students.wisc.edu Current Plans for New RQ alex New Shaman Rule Ideas 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: dunham@hamachi.pensee.com (David Dunham) Date: Sat, 3 Jun 1995 00:59:09 -0700 Subject: Re: shamans Bryan of the Many Names wrote >> 2) Curtis Shenton's idea about shaman's being able to take other's along >> on their journeys is essential if you want to run spirit-world adventures > >True, but if and only if you want to do that. Shamans in my campaign do all >their spirit stuff on downtime. You're lucky. In a recent session I played in, we had a battle in what happened to be a cave sacred to the spirits. Immediately after the battle, the shaman asked, "any interesting spirits here?" In the game I GM, a different player's shaman typically asks the same question. What's the GM supposed to do, say "do that in downtime?" That would involve going back into the past. Assuming player and GM have time to _run_ downtime. This is one of the main reasons I'm against player shamans. David Dunham Pensee Corporation dunham@nw.pensee.com Voice/Fax 206 783 7404 http://www.pensee.com/dunham/ "I say we should listen to the customers and give them what they want." "What they want is better products for free." --Scott Adams ------------------------------ From: loren@hops.wharton.upenn.edu (Loren Miller) Date: Sat, 3 Jun 1995 12:48:45 -0400 Subject: Fatigue We tested the AIG fatigue rules and found them quite acceptable. I don't have any problems with the add-to-roll mechanic. On the contrary, I think it gives the GM additional flexibility for penalties to actions. The value of the penalties or the fumble rules might need to be adjusted but I thought the basic idea was very useful. But then I don't hold the RQ2 or RQ3 rules to be sacred and immutable, unlike some among the playtesters. - -- whoah! +++++++++++++++++++++++23 Loren Miller ------------------------------ From: curtiss@netcom.com (Curtis Shenton) Date: Sat, 3 Jun 1995 11:54:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: Shamans healing >Loren writes: > > This is just one egregious example of the glorantha-specific rules > that we need to root out of runequest's core rules. Later, in the > glorantha rules we can put them back, but they shouldn't be core > rules in a universally useful runequest. What is the current goal for runequest? Is it supposed to be a set of generic rules for fantasy games or just for Glorantha? Either way I'll confess I'm personally only interested in the magic rules. I'd just graft them on to Elric! > > Loren Miller LOREN@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu - -- Curtis Shenton curtiss@netcom.com internet & 4@3091 WWIVnet "Remember the story of Burt and the Piano" -Stan Ridgway ------------------------------ From: bjm10@cornell.edu (Bryan Maloney) Date: Sat, 3 Jun 1995 16:59:05 -0400 Subject: Re: Shamans healing To paraphrase Oliver: The current plans for RuneQuest is to issue it as a stand-alone, single-volume 200-300 page work titled "RuneQuest". At the same time or within a month, there will be released another single volume of the same size called "Adventures in Glorantha", the latter to be edited by some wargamer called Perigrine, Plimpton, Purplepeopleater? (No, it's Steve Perrin who's been asked to edit it.) Anyway, this would also be an excellent time to revive another world for RuneQuest and issue a book the same size for Fantasy Earth, something up to the standards of Vikings, if possible. There are many acts of virtue, but three are the greatest: To engender love where there is hate. To bring understanding where there is ignorance. To really slam some clueless git in grand style. ------------------------------ From: kchrist1@students.wisc.edu Date: Sat, 3 Jun 1995 19:05:36 -0500 Subject: Current Plans for New RQ >To paraphrase Oliver: > > >The current plans for RuneQuest is to issue it as a stand-alone, single-volume >200-300 page work titled "RuneQuest". At the same time or within a month, >there will be released another single volume of the same size called >"Adventures in Glorantha", the latter to be edited by some wargamer >called Perigrine, Plimpton, Purplepeopleater? > >(No, it's Steve Perrin who's been asked to edit it.) > >Anyway, this would also be an excellent time to revive another world >for RuneQuest and issue a book the same size for Fantasy Earth, something >up to the standards of Vikings, if possible. Greetings, from a quiet member of the list. Perhaps someone can answer a question for me. I do not mind Glorantha being kept out of the new rules. But, hopefully this means *all* references to *any* gaming environments (yes, including any "creatures" section) will be left out as well. I would really hate to see references to Hobbits, Orcs, or Fantasy Earth in the new edition. P.S. Will the rules incorporate Runes. If not, then mabye we should stop pretending and call it something else. Kent. ------------------------------ From: alex Date: Sun, 4 Jun 95 01:55:35 BST Subject: RE: New Shaman Rule Ideas Dingle decloaks as Bryan M. (gasps of shock), and states: > What I object to is people claiming that since it's the way things work in > Glorantha, it's the way that ALL RuneQuest has to work. And who, pray tell, has been saying this? Not nearly the number of people who provoke you to tell them to "move it to the Glorantha list" whenever the G-word is breathed, it's pretty obvious. Unless some topic is _clearly_ inappropriate to a "rules" list, or there's some audience for these rants for their purported "entertainment" value, then I feel they would be better skipped. Given the dea(r)th of Fantasy Earth, and the political BS that seems likely to prevent an All Singing All Glorantha 4th edition, maybe it would be helpful if we were clearer what we were targetting our rule curbuncle proposals at; "all Runequest" seems such a open-ended concept that claiming that if Chaosium (and whomever else) don't write our favourite monstrosity into the next iteration, then they're deluded pawns of Wakboth, seems rather misguided. I, for one, would be happier to see an RQ4 do what current RQ attempts, but rather better, than have it drag in, say, every nuance of modern Korean "shamanism", which seems related to existing RQ shaman rules in not-even-name only. Alex. ------------------------------ End of RQ Rules Digest: V1 #243 ******************************* 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