From: owner-rq-rules-digest To: rq-rules-digest@hops.wharton.upenn.edu Subject: RQ Rules Digest: V2 #203 Reply-To: rq-rules Errors-To: owner-rq-rules-digest Precedence: bulk Content-Return: Prohibited Return-Path: owner-rq-rules-digest RQ Rules Digest: Wednesday, 6 March 1996 Volume 02 : Number 203 TABLE OF CONTENTS David Dunham RQ Cities Robert McArthur Humakti Nils Weinander Breaking weapons Edward Moon Humakti Trent Smith Breaking weapons Loren Miller Breaking weapons Tal Meta More Sandy's Sorcery Lervk\ A fuz@delta1.deltanet Humakti MUS_RDC@hal.lamar.edu simplifying and special casing Trent Smith Breaking weapons 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@pensee.com (David Dunham) Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 22:52:36 -0800 Subject: Re: RQ Cities MONTESINOS MARTINEZ; JORGE wondered >What about RQ Cities? Is a suplement with information and maps of >Glorantha's cities, with NPCs, with adventures, prices lists, or new rules? It's generic, and includes info on making cities and running encounters in them. It was slightly RuneQuest-ized from the generic version Midkemia Press did. It includes my (uncredited, but paid for) extension of the original Catch Up Tables, useful when characters are spending long amounts of time in a city and you (as GM) want things to happen to them. David Dunham Pensee Corporation dunham@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: Robert McArthur Date: Wed, 6 Mar 96 16:33:59 EST Subject: Re: Humakti > > So, what does a Humakti Spirit of > > Reprisal do, anyhow? Show up and blow four sever spirits and hope it gets > > ya? Shatter your Sword? > > Yep, it shatters your sword. All people who switch from the Humakt > cult to the Yanafals cult ARE affected by the spirit of reprisal, and if they > try to use a sword again, it will shatter. OK. Fine. I'll buy the sword shattering. But, being a pluralistic chap, I want to know HOW the spirit does it. Do they have a spell to do it (and therefore must overcome the power of the sword's owner since they're holding it)? Do they have a power which somehow automatically works? If so, then presumably like any other power, a heroquest could gain any person (or hero) this power. And what are the Gloranthan mythos' mechanics which allow any sword you touch to shatter without the spirit being there? Does the ex-Huey have some powerful anti-sword phobia placed on them so they _can't_ pick up another sword? Not really since we're told they shatter rather than that they are not used by ex-H. If we start talking about big H watching every worshipper and ex-worshipper all the time and sends a spirit to do the shattering each time the person picks up a sword I think some people on the Gloranthan list may explode. How about something added to their 'aura' (for want of a better term) which reacts so badly against a sword (gosh, how does one get it *so* specific that it doesn't react to scimitars as well) that the sword shatters? But that seems to imply everyone has an amount of sword-friendship in their aura. But if there's sword-friendship, what about everything else? Imagine the person with water-unfriendship - either one quick dip and they're history or everyone around ducks for cover out of the way of the exploding water. So my learned colleagues, I beg you to reconsider this shattering of swords. Surely it is more likely that it is purely rumour. Obviously there have been Humakti whose crime was such that big H *did* watch them all the time and sent a spirit (He can't interfere himself remember!) when the dastard touched a sword. But for yourselves, who have committed no crime, who wish only to experience the riches of growth, knowledge and carnage that Yanafal Tarnils can provide. Worry not! Your swords are safe. You may join us without this fear of retribution. Humakt, being inferior as the battle at Castle Blue shows, needs these lies to keep devoted though scared followers. Yanafal Tarnils needs no such puny enforcement strategy. For that, YT simply relies on the simple, cheap and odious (though necessary sometimes) expedient of THE BAT. Macum Testosteronis, Seargent in charge of Recruitment, Karse ------------------------------ From: Nils Weinander Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 08:44:30 +0100 Subject: Re: Breaking weapons What about saying that breaking the parrying object requires two or three special effects, i.e. it will only happen on a critical vs a normal parry? This way you can for example choose either to do full damage to a specific location (two effects) or break your opponents weapon (a two-slot special effect). Perhaps the number of 'special effect slots' needed depends on the relative 'power' of the weapons: if both are 'medium' you need two slots to break the defending weapon. If the defending weapon is a 'heavy' weapon or a shield you need three, etc. This way you don't need an extra resistance table roll. ________________________________________________________________________ Nils W | Here we are! Office: niwe@einku.ericsson.se | We sail on a ship made of dreams. Home: nilsw@ibm.net ------------------------------ From: emoon@adara.com (Edward Moon) Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 00:06:55 -0800 Subject: Re: Humakti Well, Humakt is a God of Death and a regular sword usually has more than a passing resemblance to the death rune. The death rune looks like this and a sword looks like this: o | | --- === | | | | | | Notice a similarity? You could argue that a regular sword is a symbol of the death rune. Humakt could easily prevent an apostate from handling a death rune shaped sword. Is it only that the scimitar is a symbol of the Red Moon (kinda looks like a new moon) that prevents Humakt from breaking a scimitar? Or is it the shape? Would Humakt be able to break a flamberge or a bill hook sword? Ed Moon >OK. Fine. I'll buy the sword shattering. But, being a pluralistic chap, >I want to know HOW the spirit does it. Do they have a spell to do it (and >therefore must overcome the power of the sword's owner since they're >holding it)? Do they have a power which somehow automatically works? If so, >then presumably like any other power, a heroquest could gain any person (or >hero) this power. And what are the Gloranthan mythos' mechanics which allow >any sword you touch to shatter without the spirit being there? Does the >ex-Huey have some powerful anti-sword phobia placed on them so they _can't_ >pick up another sword? Not really since we're told they shatter rather than >that they are not used by ex-H. [snip] >How about something added to their 'aura' (for want of a better term) which >reacts so badly against a sword (gosh, how does one get it *so* specific that >it doesn't react to scimitars as well) that the sword shatters? But that seems >to imply everyone has an amount of sword-friendship in their aura. But if >there's sword-friendship, what about everything else? Imagine the person with >water-unfriendship - either one quick dip and they're history or everyone >around ducks for cover out of the way of the exploding water. > >So my learned colleagues, I beg you to reconsider this shattering of swords. >Surely it is more likely that it is purely rumour. [snip] >Macum Testosteronis, >Seargent in charge of Recruitment, >Karse ------------------------------ From: Trent Smith Date: Wed, 06 Mar 1996 00:48:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: Breaking weapons [Re: Steve Perrin's comments on my proposed weapon breakage rules]: I meant to include STR bonus for both attackers and defenders, and had I included an example (which I considered but decided wasn't necessary) this would have been clear. Also, I'd forgotten until after the message was already sent that STR bonus is no longer a die roll in the latest RQ drafts- for the record, I'm envisioning the RQ3 version of STR bonus, which I much prefer. The point about 2 rolls= 2 chances to blow it is well taken; I see no problem with simply using Max. weapon damage (+ STR bonus to add the random element) vs. Durability (again + STR...). We can also get rid of the "fumble" result I mentioned, as it would be unfair for a special success to result in a disadvantage for the attacker (I'd actually forgotten that this "effect" was the result of Extra Success, which is why I tried to make it more "fair"). Since you didn't comment on it, I'll assume that the static weapon durability factor was more pleasing than changing weapon hit points (which I noticed is also closer to the way weapon hp work in Chaosium's recent BRP games). Thanks for the comments. We may be able to get a workable system out of this yet. Trent Smith ------------------------------ From: Loren Miller Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 09:31:30 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Breaking weapons Trent Smith replies to Steve Perrin: > >1) a Possibly Break Weapon slot on the special success table in which the > >weapons could, for instance, each roll their total damage (STR would figure > >in) and if the attacking weapon is higher, the other breaks. > cases, truly ridiculous). Option #1 is better but also has some clear > problems- most obviously "shields." Unless we want seperate rules for shields > and other parrying weapons (which would be a BIG step backwards from RQ3 IMO) > this will need some refinement. How about this: How about this change? Possibly Break Weapon: Attacker rolls damage and if damage exceeds the Armor rating of the parrying weapon or shield then the parrying weapon or shield is broken. That keeps a value that we already have recorded for everything. Alternately, if you're going to get rid of all the AP scores, then say: Possibly Break Weapon: Attacker and Defender roll damage. If the attacker's damage roll is higher than the defender's then the attacker breaks the defender's parrying weapon or shield. Most weapons that are broken are then destroyed and useless. Note that medium shields must be broken twice before they are destroyed and large shields must be broken thrice before they are destroyed. Also note that bronze and untempered iron weapons cannot break tempered iron or steel weapons or shields, let alone destroy them. You would need to rewrite the Parry spell and other magics to match this new definition. - -- +++++++++++++++++++++++23 Loren Miller Working my butt off and wishing I had the time and the equipment to sit down. ------------------------------ From: Tal Meta Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 11:11:16 -0500 (EST) Subject: More Sandy's Sorcery Sandy: Well, I've been reading the rules over, and I had a few more questions... Presence - the rules state that a sorcerer cannot have more total levels of arts in effect than his Presence, and that the sorc cannot have more total MP in effect than his presence. Do both apply, or is it one or the other? Spell components - does the boost add to the Art levels the sorcerer can employ? The rules don't say if this is so (although I'd tend to think its so). Specialists: Enchanter - What are the stats for Break Conditions? Specialists: Monitor - The special spells listed; are these the same spells as appeared in Dragon Magazine a few years ago, in an article by Michael DeWolfe? Spells - Animate [Substance] refers to various Call [Substance] spells, but none appear in the text. Did you mean Evoke, or is Call [Substance] another set of spells? Thats about it for the moment... :) ------------------------------ From: "Lervk\ A" Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 09:24:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: Humakti I simply rule that power pacts of any kind - worshipper-god, sorceror-apprentice, shaman-spirit - are ver, very difficult to break under any circumstances. Even if you fail to uphold your end, to the point where you are no longer a worshipper, you are still linked., In that case, however, you are linked in a negative way. I alwo play, though, that one way to harm an enemy shaman is to take a pacted spirit, and perform ritual magic on it that will harm the shaman sending it. This works very well to keep shamans under control, as they are very careful of thier spirits, yet it does not cripple them, as it takes special skill to do this. (NB - I play that shamans can use a variant of the RQ2 spirit power pact setup, wherein they sacrifice 1 pt of POW per 10pts the spirits has, and then is is readily available, and will perform actions for them until certain conditions are met.. Sprits caputred in a fetch are much less tractible, and may well leave as soon as they have performed the letter of the the request to them. Thus, a shaman is always looking to pact with friiendly spririts, and is always wary that a hostile one will enter a pact.) As a result, once a Humakti, virtually always a Humakti. Even thoiugh thr Big H is not technically always looking at you, there is a connection. At one time, it let you cast divine magic and run worship ceremonies. Now, it is merely a way for Humakt to exact vengence. Of course, I play that a clever character might through heroquesting, break that link. Or might use it against Humakt and the cult. Note also that being in a hostile temple dampens the link, thus a good thing to do if you are about to creak your cult vows is to go hide on sacred ground to your cult's enemies. This makes it much harder for the cult to kill you either through Spirits of Retribution, or through cult members. It also confirms your apostacy, though, so there are downsides. Scott ------------------------------ From: MUS_RDC@hal.lamar.edu Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 12:40:02 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: simplifying and special casing Hi... I'm new to the mailing list, but have been playing RuneQuest for well over 10 years. My question may seem a bit obtuse, but in what way is keeping up with damaged weapons a lot of bookkeeping? Our group has always used the old RQ2 rule for weapon damage, and we've never had a problem with it. When the weapon gets damaged, we simply make a note on our character sheet by the weapon of how much damage it has taken. GM's can use several systems for keeping up with weapon damage on NPC's. Personally when refereeing a fight, I take a sheet of paper and list the NPC's on it. Then whenever something happens to an NPC (such as weapon damage or losing the use of an arm) I jot it down next to his name (or number in the case of generic broo, etc.). Another guy in our group deals with NPC weapon damage this way: When an NPC's weapon gets damaged, he checks to see if the damage will break the weapon in one blow. If so, fine, the weapon is broken. If not, the weapon is 'damaged' and any more damage to it will break it. Damaging weapons is far too interesting and useful a strategy to be dropped, and it's really not much extra to keep up with. Roger ------------------------------ From: Trent Smith Date: Wed, 06 Mar 1996 13:56:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: Breaking weapons [Loren Miller posted a couple of suggestions for handling weapon breakage]: The first suggestion is (intentionally?) the same way weapon damage works in Chaosium's BRP games (or at least in CoC5 and Elric). I suppose this system combines simplicity, workability, and (importantly IMO) backwards compatability fine (insert micro-rant about the moronic decision to change all the damage values in RQ4 here), but it seems a little bland to me; like a watered down version of the RQ3 rules. Using the Resistance Table appeals more strongly to me on this issue- perhaps because it's less predictable: a small weapon gets a chance to destroy a large weapon, and a large weapon won't automatically destroy whatever tries to parry it. While the second suggestion deals somewhat with the problem of shields and other "primarily defensive" weapons (though in a kind of clunky way) it still leaves a problem with weapons that can do a lot of damage but aren't particularly sturdy. I don't have any rw weapon experience so I can't say for certain, but it seems to me that a weapon's damage-potential and it's defensive sturdiness are independent enough that the same number can't really be used for both in most circumstances. Discounting the "automatic break" systems, which I think are too gross, I don't think there's any real way to do without some sort of weapon durability/sturdiness factor and still maintain some degree of "realism." After taking into account several suggestions from various sources, I've refined my system to look something like this: BREAK OPPONENT'S WEAPON (Requires 2 Specialty "slots"): The attacker compares his weapon's Max. damage + (rolled) STR bonus against the defending weapon's "Durability factor" on the Resistance Table. Success= defending weapon destroyed (although it can possibly be repaired later); Failure= defender disarmed (as per Disarm special effect). N.B.: "Weapon" includes shields of all types. I dropped the defender's STR bonus because, since there's no longer a chance for the defender to turn the tables on the attacker's weapon, it made no real sense to have it. I made the effect cost 2 "slots" (which might be a little confusing mathematically, but could be explained easily in an example) to allow for the "consolation prize" of a Disarm (and also because I'm under the (possibly false) impression that destroying an enemy's weapon should be pretty hard to accomplish). It's more fair than the "automatic break" rules, and IMO it's more interesting than the BRP-type system without adding much extra complexity (same number of die rolls; a little extra math/table-searching). So, any opinions/suggestions on this "new and improved" version? Trent Smith P.S. For Those Who Would Know, what are the chances that when/if some version of RQ4 finally sees the light of day that something like this "special effect" system could be included? I like it enough that I'm going to use it anyway, but I'm just wondering if, no matter how much refinement is done, this will always remain a House Rule, or if it could someday possibly make it into RQ-Canon. In a larger sense, I suppose, I'm asking if the RQ:AiG Rules (not background) are the absolutely Final Word on "RQ4" (in which case I'd just as soon it not see publication; I like a lot of the House Rules I've seen here MUCH better than what I've heard/read about AiG). ------------------------------ End of RQ Rules Digest: V2 #203 ******************************* 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