From: owner-rq-rules-digest To: rq-rules-digest@hops.wharton.upenn.edu Subject: RQ Rules Digest: V3 #54 Reply-To: rq-rules Errors-To: owner-rq-rules-digest Precedence: bulk Content-Return: Prohibited Return-Path: owner-rq-rules-digest RQ Rules Digest: Sunday, 1 September 1996 Volume 03 : Number 054 TABLE OF CONTENTS Peter Maranci What About the Runes? SimonPhipp@aol.com Sanity/Other Worlds Henrik Bjerregaard RQ Rules Digest: V3 #36 Chris Klug Aegytp misc2825@cantva.canterbury.a Sanity/Other Worlds Jesper Wahrner Sanity Delecti@aol.com MAGIC ECONOMICS/game mechanics & RQ 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: Peter Maranci Date: Sun, 1 Sep 1996 01:12:23 -0400 (EDT) Subject: What About the Runes? While I was talking with a friend about the fate of RQ tonight, an interesting point came up: What about the Runes? Does it make sense to have RuneQuest without the Runes? Not really. But the Runes are more a Gloranthan element than a rule element. Without Glorantha, the "Rune" in "RuneQuest" is meaningless. The name could be changed to something else, but that would probably just decrease the already too low value of the system. Alternatively a new standard world-setting could be included that features the Runes...but could a new Rune-based RQ world be sufficiently differentiated from Glorantha? At the least a new world would have to have *some* Runic elements in it (and will Glorantha still have Runes in the new game? I wonder). It would probably also be wise for the new hypothetical world to retain the elements that made RQ2 Glorantha so attractive. I'd be interested to hear what others consider to be the main attractions of the Glorantha/RQ mix. For me, the idea of *everyone* having magic was most appealing. Also, widespread cult membership made it easy to give a character a logical place in the world. The potential of HeroQuesting gave an attractive possibility of roleplaying a truly grand and heroic scale. I'd like to see those qualities retained in the new edition, if possible. It does seem to me that G:TG will be a hugely different experience from RQ: Glorantha. I've been reading (and publishing) David Dunham's Pendragon Pass writeups for years, and I've had the feeling that while there are (of course) many similarities between Pendragon Pass and regular RQ, the differences are profound. Time scale, for one thing. The scale seems to shift towards the Pendragon mode. The years pass quickly for the PCs, the result being that the players get to spend less time with their characters. I'd like to hear David's comments on how (if at all) this affects characterization. Do your players tend to take the long view? How would you compare their connection to their PCs vis a vis RQ Glorantha players? Also, character traits are fine for Pendragon, but personally I'm not sure that I'd feel comfortable with them in a long-term game. I'm worried about free will. And what about hit locations? Will Glorantha suddenly change from a world where limbs are often maimed or severed to one where such events are comparatively rare examples of GM fiat? To jump back to the question of RQ (I'm all over the field tonight!), I can't help but wish the Avalon Hill would make some direct contact with this list. This is a potentially invaluable resource for them, or at least an informative one. Why not make use of it? The alternative, letting RQ end up in the same limbo as DragonQuest, is hardly profitable. Argh, I *hate* this suspense... -->Pete - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Maranci pmaranci@tiac.net / maranci@tiac.net Malden, MA Editor, Interregnum RPG/Science Fiction APA/magazine -- email for info. Interregnum WWW home page: http://www.tiac.net/users/maranci/index.html ------------------------------ From: SimonPhipp@aol.com Date: Sun, 1 Sep 1996 10:35:24 -0400 Subject: Sanity/Other Worlds One argument against the use of Sabity in RuneQuest id that it is not used in the Elric/Stormbringer/Hawkmoon rules. Surely any system which enables the PCs to experience the raw stuff of Moorcock's Multiverse, especially the Chaos Lords and their realms would be the system for Sanity rules. As they don't have Sanity, then RuneQuest should not need them. One of my players pointed out that he had waded knee deep in the blood of those his character had killed, had met and defeated chaotic demons by the dozen and had even fought against some minor gods and survived - his character should be hardened against seeing weird things. Seeing a corpse moving is no problem as he has made many such zombies in the past. Personally, I think that Sanity should have no place in RuneQuest simply because people have seen strange things and know that these things exist - in Lovecraft's Universe, most people did not know about these things and were sent mad upon finding out about them. Different Universe, different rules. ========= Other Worlds Unfortunately, the people I play RuneQuest with only play in Glorantha, so the chances of me actually running an Other Worlds RuneQuest campaign are slim. However, over the years I have thought about it a lot and eventually decided that the best times to set a historical campaign are Dark Ages Britain/Europe or Homeric Greece/Near East. Dark Ages Britain is good because we know the tales of King Arthur (moved away from the mediaeval chivalric settings back to when they actually happened) and we know the Roman Empire. There is room for roleplaying with the different social groups around (Old Celts, Romano-Britons, Angles/Saxons, Gauls, Franks, Romans etc), plenty of scope for using magic (Celtic and Saxon Berserkers, Druids, Fairies, Witches, The Grail and even Old Atlantis Mages), the Celtic, Saxon and Old Roman cultures are all polytheistic with pantheons galore, even the Christian Church at that time could be modelled on Saint Worship, with a pantheon of Saints granting some magic, all this is compatible with the RuneQuest system. In fact, if you use the Charlemane legends as well, with only a small time-shift or reality change, you could expand it into France, or you could use the Arthurian conquest of northern France and Scandinavia to move things away from Britain if you wanted to. Then there are the survivors of Atlantis to include for an exotic element. Homeric Greece is also good as you have the Greek Legends, The Trojan War, The Odessey, The Argonauts, The Biblical David and Solomon (roughly), the kingdoms of Egypt, Asyrrians and Hittites and so on. It is sometimes necessary to juggle with dates to move nearly contemporary kingdoms/events around, but there is a whole load of good stuff happening around 1000 BC. Once again, there are many cultures for interaction, most of the people worship pantheons and magic was known and respected. Above all, RuneQuest does not have a high level of magic, so if you restrict Divine spells to Rune Levels, allow Spirit Magic for normal people then I do not see RuneQuest magic impacting on the day-to-day world. Heroes always have some magic anyway, so if you are basing the campaign on Legends then this is no problem. ------------------------------ From: Henrik Bjerregaard Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 09:59:46 +0200 Subject: Re: RQ Rules Digest: V3 #36 owner-rq-rules-digest@hops.wharton.upenn.edu wrote: > > RQ Rules Digest: Wednesday, 21 August 1996 Volume 03 : Number 036 Hello someone.. Please delete jumbo@inet.uni-c.dk from your mailinglist. Rgds Henrik Bjerregaard Jumbo Computer ------------------------------ From: Chris Klug Date: Sun, 1 Sep 96 14:41:40 -0400 Subject: Re: Aegytp Regarding placement of campaigns circa 2000 BCE: > The Egyptians were going strong at this point. Menes first >combined Upper and Lower Egypt and proclaimed himself the first >Pharoah at about 3400 BC. At a guess, 2000 BC is about 14th Dynasty, >or Middle Kingdom. You'll find plenty of material at any good library. If you can plow through it, "From Fetish to God in Ancient Egypt" by Budge really gives you a sense of the mythic and magical around that age. That age, to me, allows the Games Master to weave magic into the fabric of everyday life than any AD era ever would. Chris Klug Diamond Dreams 908-866-1881 "You cannot be totally committed sometimes..." ------------------------------ From: misc2825@cantva.canterbury.ac.nz Date: Mon, 02 Sep 1996 10:30:25 +1200 Subject: Re: Sanity/Other Worlds On Sun, 1 Sep 1996 SimonPhipp@aol.com wrote: > One argument against the use of Sabity in RuneQuest id that it is not used in > the Elric/Stormbringer/Hawkmoon rules. Surely any system which enables the > PCs to experience the raw stuff of Moorcock's Multiverse, especially the > Chaos Lords and their realms would be the system for Sanity rules. As they > don't have Sanity, then RuneQuest should not need them. In 'Demon Magic' the Second Stormbringer Supplement, there *were* a set Sanity rules but they weren't very good IMO. Life was far too short for Sanity to be much of a worry whereas it had oddities like Pan Tangans Wizards being almost immune to SAN loss (where they should be SAN 0 IMO). > Personally, I think that Sanity should have no place in RuneQuest simply > because people have seen strange things and know that these things exist - in > Lovecraft's Universe, most people did not know about these things and were > sent mad upon finding out about them. Different Universe, different rules. There is madness in Glorantha and other RQ worlds which could be used to argue for sanity rules. However I would use the passion spirit rules in Lords of Terror (and the Book of Drastic Resolutions) to simulate most forms of madnesses. OTOH I do believe that illuminates can exhibit abberant mental states as a result of illumination. These can't be cured by a visit to the Shaman (as it's not caused by a spirit) and some sanity rules (ie POW*3) could be used for this... - --Peter Metcalfe ------------------------------ From: jewahr@hts.pp.se (Jesper Wahrner) Date: 02 Sep 96 02:08:46 +0100 Subject: Re: Sanity Sandy P: SP> Do you play Cthulhu? I don't know any Keeper that extorts SAN for SP> "normal" death, unless unexpected or critical (like sudden news of a SP> loved one's passing, such as caused Robert E. Howard to commit SP> suicide). Death-related SAN losses are caused by the sight of SP> hideously mangled corpses, and only unnatural ones. I usually demand a SAN-roll if the character is unused to death. But normal death such as seeing someone you know but aren't emotionally attached die from sickness wouldn't cost more than 0/1. I would always charge much more for a character the first time he kills another human no matter how good reasons he has. (At least 1/1d6.) Of course in the worst cases he stands a good chance of getting it back immediately. This is in Cthulhu of course, I wouldn't dream of charging SAN for killing or common death in Glorantha. SP> In essence, while Sanity may not be needed as part of a RQ/Glorantha SP> game, it can fit in just fine with minimal changes. One may ask, SP> "Does Sandy use Sanity in RQ?" My reply is that I do not. Except when SP> PCs go into chaos nests. I use a variant of Sanity to cause SP> Illumination, as well. I tried using it in the earliest days of my Glorantha campaign. It worked quite well systemwise, but it changed the focus of the campaign too much so I stopped. Today I use various POW-saves similar to those Steve Perrin described. Sanitypoints for Illumination? And I viewed the state of Illumination as some sort of supersanity. But on the other hand maybe someone with 100% Cthulhu Mythos could be described as supersane too. Or maybe not... ... Quodcumque incedis sequitur mors corporis umbra. - --- Blue Wave/386 v2.21 .--> | Jesper Wahrner 2:201/293 | internet email: jewahr@hts.pp.se `----> ------------------------------ From: Delecti@aol.com Date: Sun, 1 Sep 1996 23:10:21 -0400 Subject: Re: MAGIC ECONOMICS/game mechanics & RQ Sandy writes: << The final tally: 20,000 loafer salary + 4,000 apprentice salary + 6,000 Hall o Learning & guards +10,000 payment for POW +10,000 the item to be enchanted TOTAL 50,000 pence >> How about the cost of learning the enchanting spell and any other spells that might be in the enchantment. Also, something like this would be noticed by others (due to lack of beggers, etc) who might cause problems. And it could only be done in a city where the disruption of a large number of farmers taking 3+ months off would cause untold headaches. In my game the enchantment process requires an area appropriate to type of enchanting (i.e. sorcery, rune, or spirit). Without that, you gain difficulties. This of course would increase the cost (sorcery is the best in a city outside of a temple). Sandy writes: << But the RQ game system has had a major impact on the volution of Glorantha. Here are just a few ways in which I believe this has occurred.>> Yes, I agree, RQ has help to shape the way Glorantha is now. Aloha, Scott Knowles aka Delecti@aol.com Try Delecti's Glorantha Lore Library in the Upland Marsh at: http://members.aol.com/delecti/Upland_Marsh/Lore_Library/ ------------------------------ End of RQ Rules Digest: V3 #54 ****************************** 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