[Runequest] Runequest Digest, Vol 52, Issue 17

Peter Maranci pmaranci at gmail.com
Tue Jan 29 03:16:53 EST 2013


One thing that particularly impressed me about Chivalry & Sorcery was the
magic item creation system. It must have taken me over twenty real-time
hours of work to create my starting mage's magic staff; collecting the
various materials, enchanting them down to zero magic resistance (or
whatever the term was), and putting the whole thing together. For the first
and only time, I actually felt as if I had really *made* a magic item.

Of course the system itself was quite clunky, but the magic item creation
system was superb! I wouldn't recommend that level of detail as a standard
requirement, but as an add-on system for RQ it would be fabulous. And
that's one thing that RQ rather badly needs: a system of magic item
creation which doesn't depend on the user sacrificing chunks of their soul.
There should be some practical way to allow players to draw on external
resources in part or in whole to create magic items, without making the
process so cheap or easy as to unbalance the game. Perhaps a requirement of
both time and money? The time, in particular to be put in by the characters
themselves, with no allowance for the work to be farmed out to others?


On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Stephen Posey <stephenlposey at earthlink.net
> wrote:

>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> >From: David Cake <dave at difference.com.au>
> >Sent: Jan 28, 2013 12:28 AM
> >To: RuneQuest Rules <runequest at rpgreview.net>
> >Subject: Re: [Runequest] Runequest Digest, Vol 52, Issue 17
> >
> >
> >On 28/01/2013, at 9:46 AM, "Andrew" <bgecko at bigpond.com> wrote:
> >> Ah yes Bushido. I remember playing around with that game, as well as
> Daredevils, Chivalry and Sorcery and Empire of the Petal Throne. Always
> came back to RQ however.
> >
> >
> >       And don't forget Aftermath, the other game system that used the
> loosely defined FGU meta-rules. A
> > classic example of  detail obsessed simulationist design goals (pages of
> rules on designing your own sling shots!
> > 30 hit locations! the huge catalogue of marginally different firearms!)
> that was dreadfully undermined by dubious
> > rules in practice (actually, most handguns came down to d10 pr d10 +1 -
> and the various super high powered
> > weapons could actually become less dangerous as power increased due to
> rules quirks).
>
> Just to prove how much of a pedant and RPG rules-weenie I am I'll point
> out that FGU's Pulp-adventure system "Daredevils" is also based on the same
> Hume/Charette system and can well be considered "Aftermath!-Lite".
>
> BTW, if anyone is interested, FGU is still going:
>
> http://www.fantasygamesunlimited.net
>
> They've even got an "Aftermath! Magic" supplement out, which I've been
> circling for purchase out of gobsmacked curiosity if nothing else.
>
> >       I have a weird love/hate relationship with Chivalry and Sorcery. I
> bought pretty much every supplement for
> > the 1st and 2nd editions very cheap back in the day. I find a lot of
> great imagination and inspiration went into
> > the rules and supplements, and they are full of interesting ideas (some
> excellently researched, some dreadfully),
> > and I still keep them around for inspiration.
>
> Ditto. The Sourcebooks still resonate for me with how to think about
> things like handling major wounds, diseases, knocking down doors, complex
> locks, feudal economics, etc. And I find something very compelling about
> the handling of alchemists as something other than mere concoctors of
> potions and weird substances.
>
> >       However, I have alway found the rules almost unplayably bad in
> practice. Magicians, for example, are
> > either painfully useless or staggeringly overpowered, barely ever
> anywhere in between. Combats are slow and
> > klunky and have too much detail, without ever feeling realistic. etc.
>
> I'll concur on all those points. Though I feel compelled to mention a pet
> bugaboo of mine: despite the general claims in the RPG literature (and not
> to steal any of Chaosium's thunder, just to set the record straight), I do
> believe C&S Saurians beat TrollPak by a year as the first "Fully Detailed
> Non-Human Sourcebook" published.
>
> >       Much as I love the nostalgia, the rules systems we have now really
> are, for the most part, much much
> > better (and I definitely put RQ6 as an example). That crazy rush of
> creativity at the start of the hobby, much
> > of it totally mad but so much fun to read (any of Dave Hargraves Arduin
> Grimoire stuff, for example), I still
> > find inspiring, but we really have learnt a LOT about how to make good
> rules in the intervening decades.
>
> OMG, Arduin is so wonderfully over the top. We actually tried to play it
> for a while, this was back when only the first three digest-sized books
> were out and could hardly be construed as a COMPLETE system (we tacked on
> bits and bobs of OD&D and AD&D to make it work). The GM had a lot of
> trouble keeping things reined in. Great fun, but quickly got out of hand.
>
> Anybody else following this "Old School RPG Renaissance" that's going on
> on? RPGNow and DriveThruRPG are chock full of clones of OD&D, AD&D, and
> several other early systems and miscellaneous add-ons, supplements, etc.
>
> It appears that notstalgia for all that is driving some significant
> segment of the RPG community these days.
>
> Stephen Posey
> stephenlposey at earthlink.net
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Runequest mailing list
> Runequest at rpgreview.net
> http://rpgreview.net/mailman/listinfo/runequest_rpgreview.net
>



-- 
Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com
Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm
The Diary of A Simple Man: http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rpgreview.net/pipermail/runequest_rpgreview.net/attachments/20130128/84f434ea/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Runequest mailing list