From: owner-rq-rules-digest To: rq-rules-digest@hops.wharton.upenn.edu Subject: RQ Rules Digest: V3 #47 Reply-To: rq-rules Errors-To: owner-rq-rules-digest Precedence: bulk Content-Return: Prohibited Return-Path: owner-rq-rules-digest RQ Rules Digest: Thursday, 29 August 1996 Volume 03 : Number 047 TABLE OF CONTENTS Guy Hoyle Glorantha and RQ David Dunham RQ; combat options Alain RAMEAU RQ and Glorantha Alain RAMEAU Feints Simon D. Hibbs Magical defence & spell boosting Nick Marcelja Glorantha and RQ Nick Marcelja Feints David Weihe Feints Nick Marcelja Feints Sandy Petersen Magic, Runes, Rulership 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: Guy Hoyle Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 00:30:31 -0400 Subject: Re: Glorantha and RQ >There are I suspect plenty of gamers out there who use RQ for their own >purposes and were buying Glorantha stuff out of general interest. They may >well not bother with non-RQ Glorantha - put me in that category anyway. So >it is possible that neither Chaosium nor Avalon-Hill will have a viable product. >-- >Hartley Patterson > >Home Page: http://village.vossnet.co.uk/h/hpttrsn/ >featuring News from Bree, medieval economics >and an elderly universe There may be such a market. However, for me, RuneQuest exists mainly to allow me to interact with Glorantha. If it becomes a system without a world, I will probably lose most interest in it. (However, I still hope to play the two together for as long as possible.) There are a couple of things that could interest me in RuneQuest as a separate system, though. One, put together a multi-genre rules system based on RuneQuest; this would be a massive task, but the basics are there. Strip the spells down to basic powers and come up with ways to modify them into super-powers, spells, psionics, what have you. In other words, turn it into a meta-game system. Of course, GURPS and CHAMPIONS have done this before, so it would have to be well supported. I think this is a very remote possibility, one not likely to happen. Or two, you could develop a convincing background for the core rules. Easier said than done, but I think it could be done. I vote for some sort of basis in history, since I think a rough world could be knocked together quickly. Maybe you could entire eras, such as Ancient Mediterranean, Medieval Europe and the Holy Land, Imperial China, etc. Whatever it is, it'll have to be unique enough that other games have not yet cornered the market, yet interesting enough to survive in the chaotic world of RPGs. Guy Hoyle (guyhoyle@chrysalis.org) "They'll let ANY damn fool have a Web site now! Take a look at http://www.chrysalis.org/guyhoyle/ and I'll PROVE it!" ------------------------------ From: David Dunham Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 22:38:23 -0700 Subject: Re: RQ; combat options Martin Kelly asked > So, if Chaosium owns the rights to the rules, material could be published > for Glorantha under license from Chaosium, using the complete RQIII rules, > as long as it didn't say "RuneQuest" on it? In theory.... Yes, though at RQ Con Down Under, Greg said that he wouldn't do anything like that to Avalon Hill. I agree that feinting could be considered abstracted into the system. Skilled fighters hit more often *because* they feint to draw out their opponent. That said, I'd love something that gave better combat options -- the flavors of RQ4 had some good ideas but I don't think they became quite polished enough (even Loren "newlywed" Miller's version), and there never seemed to be agreement over whether anyone could use a combat option or you had to be a master or what. The simplest approach seems to be to have results other than additional damage for a special success. BTW, Pendragon is not based on Basic Roleplaying, though it's obviously inspired by it. The opposed resolution system is completely different. I'll argue this offline if anyone cares. David Dunham Glorantha/RQ page: Imagination is more important than knowledge. -- Albert Einstein ------------------------------ From: Alain_RAMEAU@total.fr (Alain RAMEAU) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 09:51:09 +0200 Subject: RQ and Glorantha Martin Declan Kelly wrote >So, if Chaosium owns the rights to the rules, material could be >published for Glorantha under license from Chaosium, using the >complete RQIII rules, as long as it didn't say "RuneQuest" on it? In >theory.... Could it be really possible for Chaosium to publish the RQ:AIG rules without reference to "Runequest", such as a name like "Gloranthan Adventures" ? The Glorantha fan (like me) would know exactly what it is, and would be interested, in addition to new stuff upon Glorantha, to have those new rules that appear (according to the summary I've seen) very Glorantha oriented. For the others who do not know RQ, it may be a possibility to discover a new game, and for the others who do not like the RQ system, it may be a new chance for them to appreciate. Dreams ? ------------------------------ From: Alain_RAMEAU@total.fr (Alain RAMEAU) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 10:13:20 +0200 Subject: Feints In relation to the on-going discussion relating to the feints, I propose my additional combat options : * waiting for an opportunity : the attacker add 1D10 to his Strike Rank. If the result is above 10, he loses his attack. If the result is 10 or less, he attacks at that SR and the defense of the adversary (parry or dodge) is halved. * full attack : the attacker add 1SR, get one additionnal bonus level (+0 becomes +1D4, +1D4 becomes +1D6, ...), but the defense of the adversary (parry or dodge) is multiplied by 1.5. * counter-attack : if the attacker has a lower SR than the adversary, he may suspend his attack until the next SR after the adversary's attack. If the adversary fails his attacks, the counter-attacker attack skill is multiplied by 1.5. * lethal hit : the attacker may increase the damage done by 1 point for each 10% of decrease of his attack skill. For exemple, a 60% attacker can add +3 damages if he hits with only 30% attack. If the roll is above such reduced percentage (even if under the original attack skill), the attack is missed. Alain. ------------------------------ From: "Simon D. Hibbs" Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 15:07:03 +0100 (BST) Subject: Magical defence & spell boosting Alain RAMEAU says : >I have concerns with the system for boosting spells, because IMO, it >implies that the defender will always loose. Why ? Because there is no >real limit (except available Magic Points) to such boosting, while, on >the other hand, the defender cannot boost his protective spell and can >only rely on a high level spell >Any ideas how to handle this problem (which may be not a problem for >others ?) In general the tendency is for offensive strategies to be capable of defeating defensive strategies. Historicaly, whatever defensive strategy is developed, a counter will be developed very rapidly. The trouble with beefing up spell defenses is that you would very often get situations where a magical defence proved unbeatable given the resources available, thus eliminating aa important dimension from the conflict. This happens often enough anyway, but having two magicians functionaly incapable of casting spells on each other in a magical combat means it is nolonger a magical combat - they would end up puching each other up instead, and there is a real risk this could happen. I recently started playing with a bunch of people I had never played RQ with before, though they still used RQ2. I noticed that they never seemed to boost spells with extra MPs (Well, battle magic POW) and neither they or the NPC seemed to use magical defences much. I started playing a Troll shaman and used all the usual tricks, boosting spells, using decent defensive magic, summoning shades and protecting them with Shield/countermagic/protection spells, etc and started going through the opposition like a hot knife through butter. I suppose it's just that they had never realy thought through the possibilities, where I was used to playing in a group that was pretty experimental with magic. I suppose what this means is, it depends on the style of play of your group. By using all the tricks in the book, I actualy ended up changing the emphasis of the game inadvertantly. Nobody seemed to mind, but perhaps your group is not interested in having a magical arms race. I suppose the GM could have said "Sorry Simon, I don't allow you to boost spells or whatever in my game." That would have been fine, though of course I would have felt a bit let down because I would have to redesign the character. The rules as they stand work and are prety fair, but if you want a different ballance of power in your game, then go ahead and change them. You just need to be carefull of undesirable side effects. Simon Hibbs ------------------------------ From: Nick Marcelja Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 07:53:50 -0700 Subject: Re: Glorantha and RQ > When David Hall did the readers' survey that detirmined the direction he > took with 'Reaching Moon', the great majority wanted Glorantha, more > Glorantha, nothing but Glorantha. So that's what they got. This and the > undoubted revival of interest in his world has plainly led Greg Stafford to > try again. Good. I think that glorantha is one of the best "Worlds" to play in. For some reason playing europe with RQ rules somehow lost some the the flavor I like. Playing Glorantha with say DnD rules would just not be right. > > I'm minded to think the situation is more complex than Chaosium imagine. I'd > suggest the reason so few people wanted rules discussions was that by and > large they were happy with what they' got, not that they had no loyalty to RQ. The rules are good as they stand. There can always be tweaking to make better. > Now Glorantha is to be relaunched with an as yet unwritten set of rules. > Will the fans buy the new set, or will they stick with RQ and just buy the > supplements? I would buy it just to be complete. using bits and peaces rolled into RQIII. I would need to have the rules in order to do conversions to RQIII. Supplements yes. > > There are I suspect plenty of gamers out there who use RQ for their own > purposes and were buying Glorantha stuff out of general interest. They may > well not bother with non-RQ Glorantha - put me in that category anyway. So > it is possible that neither Chaosium nor Avalon-Hill will have a viable > product. Much better Idea is to get the rights to RQ back from Avalon Hill and start from there. > -- > Hartley Patterson > > Home Page: http://village.vossnet.co.uk/h/hpttrsn/ > featuring News from Bree, medieval economics > and an elderly universe > > ------------------------------ From: Nick Marcelja Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 08:06:30 -0700 Subject: Re: Feints I like the combat options Idea. The players always want some bonus for "full out attack" > In relation to the on-going discussion relating to the feints, I > propose my additional combat options : > * waiting for an opportunity : the attacker add 1D10 to his Strike > Rank. If the result is above 10, he loses his attack. If the result is > 10 or less, he attacks at that SR and the defense of the adversary > (parry or dodge) is halved. > * full attack : the attacker add 1SR, get one additionnal bonus level > (+0 becomes +1D4, +1D4 becomes +1D6, ...), but the defense of the > adversary (parry or dodge) is multiplied by 1.5. > * counter-attack : if the attacker has a lower SR than the adversary, > he may suspend his attack until the next SR after the adversary's > attack. If the adversary fails his attacks, the counter-attacker > attack skill is multiplied by 1.5. > * lethal hit : the attacker may increase the damage done by 1 point > for each 10% of decrease of his attack skill. For exemple, a 60% > attacker can add +3 damages if he hits with only 30% attack. If the > roll is above such reduced percentage (even if under the original > attack skill), the attack is missed. Full attack and Lethal hit seem to be basically the same. increase damage for a lesser chance to hit. how about * Flurry of blows. the attacker "flails" as many blow as possible in the round. Each blow is lighter than usually. and better chance to block. but more than one chance to hit. Alain. ------------------------------ From: David Weihe Date: Thu, 29 Aug 96 12:29:39 EDT Subject: Re: Feints > * Flurry of blows. the attacker "flails" as many blow as possible in the > round. Each blow is lighter than usually. and better chance to block. > but more than one chance to hit. > > Alain. Is this the equivalent of the split attacks that 100%+ characters can already make, except against the same target? and possibly give any character the chance to make? I would probably rule that the fatigue costs would be by blows, then, rather than by MR. Also, using a dodge or parry should probably end the flurry, as well. This should be a desperation tactic, or low skill characters will try it to increase their chances, rather than do their normal single clumsy attack. ------------------------------ From: Nick Marcelja Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 10:46:18 -0700 Subject: Re: Feints > > > * Flurry of blows. the attacker "flails" as many blow as possible in > > > the > > round. Each blow is lighter than usually. and better chance to block. > > but more than one chance to hit. > > > Is this the equivalent of the split attacks that 100%+ characters can > already make, except against the same target? and possibly give any > character the chance to make? I am basing this on SCA combat. No it is not the 100%+ skill. This is a tactic used by new or semi-skilled fighters. The flurry fighter begins throwing as many fast blows as physically possible. each blow is not very skillfull or hard. BUT this has the effect of keeping the defender busy blocking all of these blows. A good fighter can block a flurry, wait for the fighter to tire a bit, then smack them. A flurry can go on for 20-30 seconds TOPS.. then the fighter has to relax a bit. > I would probably rule that the fatigue costs would be by blows, then, > rather than by MR. Also, using a dodge or parry should probably end > the flurry, as well. This should be a desperation tactic, or low skill > characters will try it to increase their chances, rather than do their > normal single clumsy attack. This should not give a better chance of a hit. But will keep the defender busy for a time. flurry is Usually done with a lot of screaming. This is a standard tactic with two swords. step in throw as many blows as possible then step out again. Repeat as needed. The two-sword fighter depends on the defender being soo busy blocking to not have a chance to strike. Nick ------------------------------ From: Sandy Petersen Date: Thu, 29 Aug 96 13:10:39 -0500 Subject: Re: Magic, Runes, Rulership Glenn Glazer >In theory, there is a "ruler" for each rune, however, in practice >this is not the case. Many, but not all, folk in Glorantha believe there is a single source per Rune. The very best source currently available on the Runes is titled "A Gloranthan Rune Anacephalosy", by Jean Paul Lhuillier. Greg S. and I agree wholeheartedly that this must be the Rune system used by the modern Malkioni and the ancient God-Learners. At least, with only very minor changes. I have no idea what the publication history or schedule of this invaluable document is -- I encountered it for the first time at this summer's convention. It lists 98 Runes, organizing them into combinations, sentences, equations and all manner of heretical activity which struck us with the ring of truth. It is so profound a tome, that despite a promise to carefully provide feedback, comments, and other material, I have not yet done more than read it over repeatedly, wondering where to begin. Soon, Jean Paul, if you're reading this. Anyway, good luck to the Anencaphalosy! >For example, Primal Chaos is the ruler of the chaos rune, but has >the rune only once. Ah, but Primal Chaos isn't "really" the ruler of the Chaos Rune. That honor is held by at least _six_ entities according to the Malkioni, Theyalan, and Lunar evaluation. The Theyalans originated the concept of the six forms of Chaos, and it came to the West during the Gbaji Wars. It was reinforced by Draconic myth in the EWF (Dragonewts believe in six varieties of chaos/creation/non-chaos). The Lunar Empire doubtless received the belief in 6 Chaoses from Carmania, since I do not think the Dara Happans knew about it. The six? Well, the exact deities who would be the "rulers" is argued about interminably, as only pedants care. Here are two separate groups of candidates, one from Pithdaros, the other from Esrolia. PITHDAROS ESROLIA Gbaji: the North Vivamort: the Void Vovisibor: the South Jokbazi: the Source Vakalta: the Underworld Primal Chaos: the Slime Tyram: the Overheaven Kajabor: the Destroyer Xamalk: the Isles Wakboth: the Evil Gloomshark: the Sea Gbaji: the Betrayer Chaotic philosophers do not generally accept this six-fold distinction, which is perhaps puzzling. >Another example is Valind, who is the only god that I am aware of >that has the ice rune, but only has it once. Most folk who believe in ownership of Runes do not believe that minor Runes have owners. Hence Ice, a sub-Rune of water, or darkness, or something, does not have an owner by their precepts. >I have never seen more than one ruler per rune. Barring some sort >of cosmogenic compromise, I don't think it could happen. Even Chaos as described above is not an exception. Those who accept a sixfold Chaos say that either "Any Chaos Is All Chaos" so all six together own the Rune, or else that Chaos is really at least six different Runes which all look the same. Sandy ------------------------------ End of RQ Rules Digest: V3 #47 ****************************** 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