From: owner-rq-rules-digest To: rq-rules-digest@hops.wharton.upenn.edu Subject: RQ Rules Digest: V2 #56 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, 1 September 1995 Volume 02 : Number 056 TABLE OF CONTENTS Kim Englund I have opened my web-pages (fwd) Craig K Heroic Retreats from Chaos Cedric Chausson Heroic Retreats from Chaos Brian Tickler Thinking... Graydon Thinking... Frederic J Moulin Thinking... rstaats@mail.lmi.org "Humakt, God of Suicide"or"My Humakt is To rstaats@mail.lmi.org In defense of Sandy's position on Humakt D 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: Kim Englund Date: Fri, 1 Sep 1995 08:27:30 +0300 (EET DST) Subject: I have opened my web-pages (fwd) Hello everybody! I have opened my webpages, where I have written about our adventures, in the form of a journal. The address is http://www.hut.fi/~kienglun/rq/rqpage.html Hope you enjoy reading them, as we have playing them. Kim PS. comments are welcome. Kim Englund kim.englund@hut.fi Member of PALS ( People Against Long Signatures ) ------------------------------ From: Craig K Date: Fri, 01 Sep 95 15:23:00 BST Subject: Re: Heroic Retreats from Chaos >I feel that (one of) the most difficult thing(s) to represent in RQ is the >gut-churning, will-sapping, knee-knocking, brain-scrambling shock of coming >up against even the lowliest Chaos monster. SB's power is in being able to >confront these things where others would run or cower. Perhaps you could steal the insanity rules from Call of Cuthulu (spelling?) and hack them about. Keith K.Craig@lancaster.ac.uk ------------------------------ From: Cedric Chausson Date: Fri, 1 Sep 1995 16:04:36 GMT Subject: Re: Heroic Retreats from Chaos >>I feel that (one of) the most difficult thing(s) to represent in RQ >>is the>gut-churning, will-sapping, knee-knocking, brain-scrambling >>shock of coming up against even the lowliest Chaos monster. >Perhaps you could steal the insanity rules from Call of Cuthulu >(spelling?) and hack them about. That is a possibility. However I feel that the insanity rules of Cthulhu have a very particular feel that does extremely well for Cthulhu but I am not sure to wan to find in RQ. Moreover the severity of those rules would make RQ an even more deadly game. It is already enough, IMHO, for RQ to be a deadly game in combat. If you add rules of losing Sanity, life is going to get very hard for the adventurers. I would be more in favour of a Horror Factor(HF) type of scheme. Every monster has an HF and when you see one you roll against it with your POW(I write POW but that is just because it is the first thing that comes to my mind. Maybe something else would be more appropriate). You check the level of your failure against a table which gives you what effect the monster has on you. Say like being stunned for one round to having your brain blow up(in case of critical miss). I am aware that I left the Mechanic of this a bit vague being in the middle of finishing to wrtie my dissertation(for which I am very late) I cannot spend more than my ritual 5 minutes pause to flesh the thing out. Cedric the Heretic C.P.Chausson@stud.man.ac.uk "Violence is always a possible solution... but it is only rarely the best" ------------------------------ From: tickler@netcom.com (Brian Tickler) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 1995 10:50:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Thinking... >That's why they are supposed to think BEFORE they get in trouble. If they >don't why should they live another day? >Fred Sure, you can always avoid trouble if you just think about how to avoid it before you even know what it is... - -- Brian T. Tickler E-Mail: tickler@netcom.com ------------------------------ From: Graydon Date: Fri, 1 Sep 1995 14:23:28 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Thinking... On Fri, 1 Sep 1995, Brian Tickler wrote: > [this is Fred] > >That's why they are supposed to think BEFORE they get in trouble. If they > >don't why should they live another day? > Sure, you can always avoid trouble if you just think about how to avoid it > before you even know what it is... Well, you can avoid a *lot* of it that way. Is there a tactical response plan? Clearly defined areas of responsibility? Is there consensus on the objectives the characters are trying to meet? Is everyone concious that one mistake can kill them? DI is an expression of character _faith_, not a player power. saundrsg@qlink.queensu.ca | Monete me si non anglice loquobar. ------------------------------ From: "Frederic J Moulin" Date: Fri, 1 Sep 1995 15:23:39 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Thinking... > > Sure, you can always avoid trouble if you just think about how to avoid it > before you even know what it is... > I guess it is just a matter of RMastering style: I don't belive in random powerfull monsters just wandering around, waiting for PC's to bump into them to start the killing. I my campaigns, there is always plenty of informations available to the players, some of them true, some not. And I have a very clear time-table of the movements of my important NPCs, their goals and the matter to achieve them. Unless it is the case of a revenge, my NPCs usually could not care less about the players who are the trouble-makers, always trying to foil whatever plan they run into. As a consequence, my NPCs don't go for the kill until it is absolutely necessary, but when they do it, it is in a very ruthless, organized and efficient manner. I have no mercy for PCs that "screw around" waiting for the troubles to come to them; my world is a dangerous place, and my PCs know it. Random encounters for me are always minors: a patrol, a few wild broos, and are systematically less powerfull than the players. My PCs are all at Rune level, and I don't send Runelords in patrol without a reason. So even with a lot of fumbles, between the 6-7 of them, they are able to handle these random fights without the help of DI. Now when it comes to the real think, I always make sure that informations are available. Whether the PCs look for them and use them is highly variable, but then when they start winning I have that simple answer :"Gee guys, I warned you!" Now I have to confess that this sometimes backfires at me. More than once my PCs, after discussion, have decided that the scenario was "too dangerous", and did not accept the mission, forcing me to throw away hours of preparation and to improvise a quick and easier adventure. But I like that a lot better than having them go anyway, counting on my generosity or their DI to get them out of trouble. I can always put aside the scenario and wait until they feel ready to do it. Fred ------------------------------ From: rstaats@mail.lmi.org Date: Thu, 31 Aug 95 13:38:22 EST Subject: "Humakt, God of Suicide"or"My Humakt is Tougher than Yours" :-) Greetings! The discussion has really taken off! Several quick thoughts . . . {author quickly dons his flame retarding undergarments -- ah, that's better.} ;-) Let me start off by saying, as a GM, I'm a big Humakt fan. Many players have played Humakti characters over the years in the Campaign, and they have played some truly *heroic* PCs. I'm also a big fan of the RQ players/GMs/designers out there and have universally enjoyed getting to meet and interact with the whole community. So, what follows is amongst friends. :-) In general, I take Keith's and David's positions. The two principle concerns in a DI are the relationship of the worshipper to the god *and* the god's perspective of the situation. I've always considered Humakt to be more long sighted than his brethren Zorak Zoran and Storm Bull. I also work from the assumption that folks in Glorantha work pretty much the same as folks in the real world unless noted otherwise. Let us assume the individual making the request is a Death Lord in good standing. He or she has fought many battles, destroyed many undead and welcomed many into the bosom of Humakt. Now, the Death Lord set out to fight a group of Broo, but when the Death Lord advances into the valley, he discovers it is a trap. The Death Lord spies a group of Broo ahead. He cautiously walks forward; it will be a hard battle, but he believes with the help of Humakt, he can prevail. As the Death Lord navigates a narrow gully, several tons of feces and rotten animal carcasses begin raining down on him. The Broos begin hooting and hollering at him. Although he does not *fear* death, the Death Lord sees no honor or benefit to Humakt in being buried in a pile of filth and suffocating. Our hero requests Humakt to send him outside the valley so that he might gather forces and destroy this place. The Humakt who does not allow for tactical retreat via a DI in the face of *overwhelming* odds and certain destruction will promote more cowardice than the Humakt who allows for such provisions. Either than, or Humakt is more properly the God of Suicide and Depression than Truth and Honorable Death. ;-) If Humakt sees no difference between the two then all his worshippers should just go commit suicide. It takes some real courage and an acceptance of death to plunge a short sword into your abdomen and rip out one's own entrails. Since this practice is apparently *not* widespread, let's assume that Humakt makes some distinctions about how death occurs. If the worshippers knew that their god would never spare them from a tactical error (assume the God of Truth does not mislead his worshippers about this!), it would make for a *very* conservative cult (compared to what it *might* be) indeed! I can imagine the conversation around the pickle barrel . . . Initiate: Death Lord, we should go attack that festering hell hole of broo up the road! Their raping our children and cattle! Death Lord: Well . . . Billy, we're not sure how many broo are up there. We lost twenty-seven Humakti up there last year. Let's wait a spell; maybe they'll just go away. Me, I'm enjoying myself. (No, he wouldn't have ended up as a Death Lord in any campaign I ran, but it illustrates the point.) The alternative is a *clever* Humakt, the god, who wishes to promote Honorable Death and Heroism. This god would not only consider the many who the Death Lord might kill if spared, but this Humakt would also *want* to spare Death Lords now and again *just* to make them take more chances! (Forget the d10 thing for a second --- I'm all for having GMs make some tough choices --- asking for a DI does *not* assure the god will grant it, even for a Runelord, and by deciding that Humakt will *never* allow retreat in the face of the enemy, you are also making a hard choice, just a less flexible one. --- Nothing wrong with this mind you, just not my vision of Humakt.) We should not assume the Death Lord who knows Humakt might deliver him is any less heroic than the Death Lord serving the god of suicide. The Death Lord who serves the smarter Humakt could make the same appeal for a deliverance DI to Humakt and be *willing* to accept death if Humakt so wills it (i.e. refuses his request). Even Storm Bull allows his worshippers to avoid overwhelming nests of Chaos, would not the more tactically sophisticated Humakt not be more so inclined? Apologies in advance to all who might take offense. Honestly none intended. Et philos, Rich Staats ------------------------------ From: rstaats@mail.lmi.org Date: Thu, 31 Aug 95 14:16:50 EST Subject: In defense of Sandy's position on Humakt DI Greetings! Sandy *is* my pal; so, I thought it only fair to say a couple things in defense of his position. In me previous posting, I was taking a very generic, world-view type of stance. In a more specific case, Sandy has said he generally gives three warnings to players before he kills them. First comes a hint, then a stronger hint, and at last (if the player is still resisting) a still stronger hint. In this campaign, given that level of warning (which I think is reasonable by the way), any character who still walks into death's jaws is pretty much **asking for it!** Humakt's perspective might well be ``I don't want this fool teaching *any* more initiates. Let them think he died in honor.'' :-) There is an old story illustrating the point. There was a minister in a town in the US. This town was along the banks of a river which occasionally flooded. The weather reports came in that the river was going to flood. The parish sandbagged the dike, but still the river came and overwashed the dike and sand bags. One of the ministers followers drove through the water in his truck and asked the minister to join him in getting to safety. The minister replied ``no son, God will provide.'' The waters continued to rise. When the water was up to the steps of the church, a sheriff came by in a motor boat and asked the minister to join him in getting to safety. The minister refused saying ``have faith, God will provide.'' Still the waters rose. Finally, the minister was clinging to the church steeple and a FEMA helicopter came by. The crew urged the minister to join them in safety, but the minister fought them off saying ``God will provide.'' Well, sure enough, the minister drown, but he was a true believer. The minister was taken up to the hallowed halls of heaven. When he met Saint Peter at the gate, Saint Peter said ``you seem upset Minister. What is causing you such consternation? ARen't you happy you were saved?'' The minister replied ``Saved! Sure I'm happy to be in heaven, but why didn't you save me from the flood on Earth?'' Peter began, but God interrupted him saying ``Save you from the flood? I sent a truck, a boat and a helicopter! What more did you expect?'' ;-) If you've given the Humakti fair warning then let the chips fall where they will. In service, Rich Staats ------------------------------ End of RQ Rules Digest: V2 #56 ****************************** 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