From soltakss at yahoo.com Tue Jul 1 07:56:52 2003 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (=?iso-8859-1?q?Simon=20Phipp?=) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 22:56:52 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Divine Intervention In-Reply-To: <20030629232903.DEA694C4A7@thinbits.com> Message-ID: <20030630215652.66776.qmail@web9606.mail.yahoo.com> Ashley Munday: > Not really - A lot of DI's just look like flukes to us modern day folks: > > - An initiate of Vanganth falling off a mountain hits an unexpected updraft > which breaks his fall; > > - An initiate of Yelmalio finds a crtically impaling blow slid under his > armpit missing his heart by inches; > > - An initiate of Eiritha seperated from her herd and clan walks through a > genert storm for two days and finds her way unerringly back to them; > > - "We was beaten - over 30 Zombies surrounding us and only left Hrolf > Truesword standing. He screamed at them, blade shining in the twilight and > all the undead keeled over into the marsh." Except that DI absolutely can't be used to directly harm another person (no DIing the undead to pieces, for instance, but summoning a Fiend or causing an earthquake is fine). > > - An initiate of Lanbril caught red handed in Sor-Eel's office tells the > guard that caught him that he's a spy. The guard laughs it off and wanders > off - "Spy, good one, these Heartland Agents are bloody good - he looked > just like a common thief." > > Instead of having fate points, hero points, plot points, script points or > blanchmange points for initiates, in RQ you have Divine Intervention. These descriptions look pretty much how Vivamort DI was described in Cults of Terror. Specifically not how normal DI works, in my opinion, but if that's what people like then fair enough. I like people coming back from having their heads ripped off, in a flash of light and a clap of thunder. More dramatic, don't you know? Simon ________________________________________________________________________ Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo! Messenger http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/ From aescleal at btinternet.com Wed Jul 2 01:03:49 2003 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (aescleal at btinternet.com) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 16:03:49 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Divine Intervention Message-ID: <1736806.1057071829539.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Simon Phipp he say: "Except that DI absolutely can't be used to directly harm another person (no DIing the undead to pieces, for instance, but summoning a Fiend or causing an earthquake is fine)." Why not? You saying that if Hrolf Brightsword begs Humakt for help, makes his DI roll, loosing 10 POW then a couple of doses of "Turn Undead" from the big H isn't going to be forthcoming? "Come on Humakt, give us a hand..." "Nope, sorry old Son. I can't use my Divine Powers to harm undead unless you've signed form 1(a) request for Turning of not alive and not dead beings of the first party." "Hang on - Snorri the Cloud Talker called on Heler to make it rain and it dampened a salamander..." "And you should see the mess - he's only allowed that sort of malarkey if the worshipper's filled in the form for Precipiate Dismissal of Fiery Critters. Heler's in deep trouble over that one, believe me. He claims it was "collateral." There again he was always a bit queer that one. Says it's just like causing a cold - he's not responsible for Salamanders that go out without their wetskins on." "Come on, I've seen Swords kill people with a glance for, er, Your sake!" "Yep, you'd think that was me actively intervening on the mortal plane wouldn't you?" "Well isn't it?" "Nope." "What is it then?" "Buggered if I know! I'm not omnipotent you know. I can give you a nice shiny sword, shield and spiritual armour if you want." "Okay. How can you do that?" "Doesn't harm anyone." "But slaughtering that load of Zombies wouldn't be harming anyone would it? They're already dead." "Listen squire, I'm a bleedin' God, we'll have less of the backchat. Do you want anything apart from a swift punt up the Khyber for the chunk of your soul you've just dedicated to me?" "Sorry I bothered asking you..." Cheers, Ash > from: =?iso-8859-1?q?Simon=20Phipp?= > date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 22:56:52 > to: rq-rules at crashbox.com > subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Re: Divine Intervention > > Ashley Munday: > > > Not really - A lot of DI's just look like flukes to us modern day folks: > > > > - An initiate of Vanganth falling off a mountain hits an unexpected updraft > > which breaks his fall; > > > > - An initiate of Yelmalio finds a crtically impaling blow slid under his > > armpit missing his heart by inches; > > > > - An initiate of Eiritha seperated from her herd and clan walks through a > > genert storm for two days and finds her way unerringly back to them; > > > > - "We was beaten - over 30 Zombies surrounding us and only left Hrolf > > Truesword standing. He screamed at them, blade shining in the twilight and > > all the undead keeled over into the marsh." > > Except that DI absolutely can't be used to directly harm another person (no > DIing the undead to pieces, for instance, but summoning a Fiend or causing an > earthquake is fine). > > > > > - An initiate of Lanbril caught red handed in Sor-Eel's office tells the > > guard that caught him that he's a spy. The guard laughs it off and wanders > > off - "Spy, good one, these Heartland Agents are bloody good - he looked > > just like a common thief." > > > > Instead of having fate points, hero points, plot points, script points or > > blanchmange points for initiates, in RQ you have Divine Intervention. > > These descriptions look pretty much how Vivamort DI was described in Cults of > Terror. Specifically not how normal DI works, in my opinion, but if that's > what people like then fair enough. I like people coming back from having > their heads ripped off, in a flash of light and a clap of thunder. More > dramatic, don't you know? > > Simon > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo! > Messenger http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/ > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From steve at perrinworlds.com Wed Jul 2 01:57:34 2003 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Steve Perrin) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 08:57:34 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Divine Intervention References: <1736806.1057071829539.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <005901c33fe9$7eaf66a0$f4407442@wizard> I would say that divine Intervention cannot be used to do anything against another living creature than one of the god's other spells couldn't do. So a Humakti doing in some undead would be kosher. The main prohibition is supposed to be (or was when we were tweaking it around the time of 2nd Edition) that one god's DI does not work in the holy place of another god. Then again, Your World May Vary (otherwise known as YWMV) Steve Perrin ----- Original Message ----- From: To: ; Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 8:03 AM Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Re: Divine Intervention > Simon Phipp he say: > > "Except that DI absolutely can't be used to directly harm another person (no DIing the undead to pieces, for instance, but summoning a Fiend or causing an earthquake is fine)." > > Why not? You saying that if Hrolf Brightsword begs Humakt for help, makes his DI roll, loosing 10 POW then a couple of doses of "Turn Undead" from the big H isn't going to be forthcoming? > > "Come on Humakt, give us a hand..." > > "Nope, sorry old Son. I can't use my Divine Powers to harm undead unless you've signed form 1(a) request for Turning of not alive and not dead beings of the first party." > > "Hang on - Snorri the Cloud Talker called on Heler to make it rain and it dampened a salamander..." > > "And you should see the mess - he's only allowed that sort of malarkey if the worshipper's filled in the form for Precipiate Dismissal of Fiery Critters. Heler's in deep trouble over that one, believe me. He claims it was "collateral." There again he was always a bit queer that one. Says it's just like causing a cold - he's not responsible for Salamanders that go out without their wetskins on." > > "Come on, I've seen Swords kill people with a glance for, er, Your sake!" > > "Yep, you'd think that was me actively intervening on the mortal plane wouldn't you?" > > "Well isn't it?" > > "Nope." > > "What is it then?" > > "Buggered if I know! I'm not omnipotent you know. I can give you a nice shiny sword, shield and spiritual armour if you want." > > "Okay. How can you do that?" > > "Doesn't harm anyone." > > "But slaughtering that load of Zombies wouldn't be harming anyone would it? They're already dead." > > "Listen squire, I'm a bleedin' God, we'll have less of the backchat. Do you want anything apart from a swift punt up the Khyber for the chunk of your soul you've just dedicated to me?" > > "Sorry I bothered asking you..." > > Cheers, > > Ash > > > from: =?iso-8859-1?q?Simon=20Phipp?= > > date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 22:56:52 > > to: rq-rules at crashbox.com > > subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Re: Divine Intervention > > > > Ashley Munday: > > > > > Not really - A lot of DI's just look like flukes to us modern day folks: > > > > > > - An initiate of Vanganth falling off a mountain hits an unexpected updraft > > > which breaks his fall; > > > > > > - An initiate of Yelmalio finds a crtically impaling blow slid under his > > > armpit missing his heart by inches; > > > > > > - An initiate of Eiritha seperated from her herd and clan walks through a > > > genert storm for two days and finds her way unerringly back to them; > > > > > > - "We was beaten - over 30 Zombies surrounding us and only left Hrolf > > > Truesword standing. He screamed at them, blade shining in the twilight and > > > all the undead keeled over into the marsh." > > > > Except that DI absolutely can't be used to directly harm another person (no > > DIing the undead to pieces, for instance, but summoning a Fiend or causing an > > earthquake is fine). > > > > > > > > - An initiate of Lanbril caught red handed in Sor-Eel's office tells the > > > guard that caught him that he's a spy. The guard laughs it off and wanders > > > off - "Spy, good one, these Heartland Agents are bloody good - he looked > > > just like a common thief." > > > > > > Instead of having fate points, hero points, plot points, script points or > > > blanchmange points for initiates, in RQ you have Divine Intervention. > > > > These descriptions look pretty much how Vivamort DI was described in Cults of > > Terror. Specifically not how normal DI works, in my opinion, but if that's > > what people like then fair enough. I like people coming back from having > > their heads ripped off, in a flash of light and a clap of thunder. More > > dramatic, don't you know? > > > > Simon > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo! > > Messenger http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/ > > _______________________________________________ > > RQ-Rules mailing list > > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From jurrubin at earthlink.net Wed Jul 2 00:51:32 2003 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 09:51:32 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Divine Intervention Message-ID: <4253458.1057078296735.JavaMail.nobody@louie.psp.pas.earthlink.net> ROFLMAO! To quote a priest from my younger days: "All prayers are answered. The problem is, most of the time the answer is "No"." David -------Original Message------- From: aescleal at btinternet.com Sent: 07/01/03 10:03 AM To: rq-rules at crashbox.com, rq-rules at crashbox.com Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Re: Divine Intervention > > Simon Phipp he say: "Except that DI absolutely can't be used to directly harm another person (no DIing the undead to pieces, for instance, but summoning a Fiend or causing an earthquake is fine)." Why not? You saying that if Hrolf Brightsword begs Humakt for help, makes his DI roll, loosing 10 POW then a couple of doses of "Turn Undead" from the big H isn't going to be forthcoming? "Come on Humakt, give us a hand..." "Nope, sorry old Son. I can't use my Divine Powers to harm undead unless you've signed form 1(a) request for Turning of not alive and not dead beings of the first party." "Hang on - Snorri the Cloud Talker called on Heler to make it rain and it dampened a salamander..." "And you should see the mess - he's only allowed that sort of malarkey if the worshipper's filled in the form for Precipiate Dismissal of Fiery Critters. Heler's in deep trouble over that one, believe me. He claims it was "collateral." There again he was always a bit queer that one. Says it's just like causing a cold - he's not responsible for Salamanders that go out without their wetskins on." "Come on, I've seen Swords kill people with a glance for, er, Your sake!" "Yep, you'd think that was me actively intervening on the mortal plane wouldn't you?" "Well isn't it?" "Nope." "What is it then?" "Buggered if I know! I'm not omnipotent you know. I can give you a nice shiny sword, shield and spiritual armour if you want." "Okay. How can you do that?" "Doesn't harm anyone." "But slaughtering that load of Zombies wouldn't be harming anyone would it? They're already dead." "Listen squire, I'm a bleedin' God, we'll have less of the backchat. Do you want anything apart from a swift punt up the Khyber for the chunk of your soul you've just dedicated to me?" "Sorry I bothered asking you..." Cheers, Ash > from: =?iso-8859-1?q?Simon=20Phipp?= > date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 22:56:52 > to: rq-rules at crashbox.com > subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Re: Divine Intervention > > Ashley Munday: > > > Not really - A lot of DI's just look like flukes to us modern day folks: > > > > - An initiate of Vanganth falling off a mountain hits an unexpected updraft > > which breaks his fall; > > > > - An initiate of Yelmalio finds a crtically impaling blow slid under his > > armpit missing his heart by inches; > > > > - An initiate of Eiritha seperated from her herd and clan walks through a > > genert storm for two days and finds her way unerringly back to them; > > > > - "We was beaten - over 30 Zombies surrounding us and only left Hrolf > > Truesword standing. He screamed at them, blade shining in the twilight and > > all the undead keeled over into the marsh." > > Except that DI absolutely can't be used to directly harm another person (no > DIing the undead to pieces, for instance, but summoning a Fiend or causing an > earthquake is fine). > > > > > - An initiate of Lanbril caught red handed in Sor-Eel's office tells the > > guard that caught him that he's a spy. The guard laughs it off and wanders > > off - "Spy, good one, these Heartland Agents are bloody good - he looked > > just like a common thief." > > > > Instead of having fate points, hero points, plot points, script points or > > blanchmange points for initiates, in RQ you have Divine Intervention. > > These descriptions look pretty much how Vivamort DI was described in Cults of > Terror. Specifically not how normal DI works, in my opinion, but if that's > what people like then fair enough. I like people coming back from having > their heads ripped off, in a flash of light and a clap of thunder. More > dramatic, don't you know? > > Simon > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo! > Messenger http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/ > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From leonbk at yahoo.com Wed Jul 2 08:26:06 2003 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 15:26:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Divine Intervention In-Reply-To: <005901c33fe9$7eaf66a0$f4407442@wizard> Message-ID: <20030701222607.37914.qmail@web41114.mail.yahoo.com> In which case he just as well may strike dead anyone at all since he has access to Sever Spirit. I would say no to this. The most he could do, IMO, is give his follower imediate use(uses) of of Turn Undead, but it would be up to the follower to cast the spell. Leon Kirshtein www.godlearner.d2g.com --- Steve Perrin wrote: > I would say that divine Intervention cannot be used > to do anything against > another living creature than one of the god's other > spells couldn't do. So a > Humakti doing in some undead would be kosher. > > The main prohibition is supposed to be (or was when > we were tweaking it > around the time of 2nd Edition) that one god's DI > does not work in the holy > place of another god. > > Then again, Your World May Vary (otherwise known as > YWMV) > > Steve Perrin __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com From steve at perrinworlds.com Wed Jul 2 08:41:16 2003 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Steve Perrin) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 15:41:16 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Divine Intervention References: <20030701222607.37914.qmail@web41114.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <002d01c34021$e2dd05a0$f4407442@wizard> Leon, have you evaluated this? RuneLord Quackmire the bold uses his DI to kill an opponent (who gets the usual resistance against it). Since Quackmire has a POW of 15, let's say he loses half of it, or 9 points of POW. He has to build this back up again. Meantime, Daphfee the Demented, High Priest of Humakt, uses the Sever Spirit he paid 3 points of POW for under controlled conditions and achieves exactly the same thing. Having had a Rune Lord thoroughly screwed after doing one DI, I really don't see the problem with Quackmire taking the chance here. Unless your campaign has ways for a Rune Lord to immediately reclaim expended POW, he is taking a helluva a long term chance for a short term gain. Steve Perrin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Leon Kirshtein" To: Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 3:26 PM Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Re: Divine Intervention > In which case he just as well may strike dead anyone > at all since he has access to Sever Spirit. I would > say no to this. > > The most he could do, IMO, is give his follower > imediate use(uses) of of Turn Undead, but it would be > up to the follower to cast the spell. > > Leon Kirshtein > www.godlearner.d2g.com > > --- Steve Perrin wrote: > > I would say that divine Intervention cannot be used > > to do anything against > > another living creature than one of the god's other > > spells couldn't do. So a > > Humakti doing in some undead would be kosher. > > > > The main prohibition is supposed to be (or was when > > we were tweaking it > > around the time of 2nd Edition) that one god's DI > > does not work in the holy > > place of another god. > > > > Then again, Your World May Vary (otherwise known as > > YWMV) > > > > Steve Perrin > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! > http://sbc.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From leonbk at yahoo.com Wed Jul 2 08:53:15 2003 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 15:53:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Divine Intervention In-Reply-To: <002d01c34021$e2dd05a0$f4407442@wizard> Message-ID: <20030701225315.15765.qmail@web41115.mail.yahoo.com> I do not use DI as Rune spell as was the case in RQ2, I mostly use RQ3 mechanics for cult status and Rune spells. In which case a Rune Lord with a power of 15 will always get a DI (even if it costs him 10 POW) while a priest still has to roll under his POW and may kill himself. Leon Kirshtein www.godlearner.d2g.com --- Steve Perrin wrote: > Leon, have you evaluated this? > > RuneLord Quackmire the bold uses his DI to kill an > opponent (who gets the > usual resistance against it). Since Quackmire has a > POW of 15, let's say he > loses half of it, or 9 points of POW. He has to > build this back up again. > > Meantime, Daphfee the Demented, High Priest of > Humakt, uses the Sever Spirit > he paid 3 points of POW for under controlled > conditions and achieves exactly > the same thing. > > Having had a Rune Lord thoroughly screwed after > doing one DI, I really don't > see the problem with Quackmire taking the chance > here. Unless your campaign > has ways for a Rune Lord to immediately reclaim > expended POW, he is taking a > helluva a long term chance for a short term gain. > > Steve Perrin > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Leon Kirshtein" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 3:26 PM > Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Re: Divine Intervention > > > > In which case he just as well may strike dead > anyone > > at all since he has access to Sever Spirit. I > would > > say no to this. > > > > The most he could do, IMO, is give his follower > > imediate use(uses) of of Turn Undead, but it would > be > > up to the follower to cast the spell. > > > > Leon Kirshtein > > www.godlearner.d2g.com > > > > --- Steve Perrin wrote: > > > I would say that divine Intervention cannot be > used > > > to do anything against > > > another living creature than one of the god's > other > > > spells couldn't do. So a > > > Humakti doing in some undead would be kosher. > > > > > > The main prohibition is supposed to be (or was > when > > > we were tweaking it > > > around the time of 2nd Edition) that one god's > DI > > > does not work in the holy > > > place of another god. > > > > > > Then again, Your World May Vary (otherwise known > as > > > YWMV) > > > > > > Steve Perrin > > ===== Leon Kirshtein (201) 785-9135 __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com From lepus at anthrobunny.com Wed Jul 2 09:33:34 2003 From: lepus at anthrobunny.com (lepus at anthrobunny.com) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 16:33:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Divine Intervention In-Reply-To: <002d01c34021$e2dd05a0$f4407442@wizard> Message-ID: On Tue, 1 Jul 2003, Steve Perrin wrote: > Leon, have you evaluated this? > > RuneLord Quackmire the bold uses his DI to kill an opponent (who gets the > usual resistance against it). Since Quackmire has a POW of 15, let's say he > loses half of it, or 9 points of POW. He has to build this back up again. > > Meantime, Daphfee the Demented, High Priest of Humakt, uses the Sever Spirit > he paid 3 points of POW for under controlled conditions and achieves exactly > the same thing. > > Having had a Rune Lord thoroughly screwed after doing one DI, I really don't > see the problem with Quackmire taking the chance here. Unless your campaign > has ways for a Rune Lord to immediately reclaim expended POW, he is taking a > helluva a long term chance for a short term gain. This is exactly my take on it as well. Rune spells are just future promises of miracles from a god to the worshipper in exchange for a chunk of the worshipper's spirit. Divine Intervention is a miracle on-the-spot in exchange for what could be all of the worshipper's spirit. It's the worshipper's fault for not taking the Rune spell in the first place -- it's not the god's fault. -- "It's great to be known, but it's even better to be known as strange." - Chairman Takeshi Kaga From lepus at anthrobunny.com Wed Jul 2 09:34:46 2003 From: lepus at anthrobunny.com (lepus at anthrobunny.com) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 16:34:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Divine Intervention In-Reply-To: <20030701225315.15765.qmail@web41115.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 1 Jul 2003, Leon Kirshtein wrote: > I do not use DI as Rune spell as was the case in RQ2, > I mostly use RQ3 mechanics for cult status and Rune > spells. In which case a Rune Lord with a power of 15 > will always get a DI (even if it costs him 10 POW) > while a priest still has to roll under his POW and may > kill himself. But take the case of a Rune Lord with a Sever Spirit spell vs a Rule Lord just calling DI and asking Humakt to sever the spirit of Bad Guy #1, as in my example. -- "It's great to be known, but it's even better to be known as strange." - Chairman Takeshi Kaga From leonbk at yahoo.com Wed Jul 2 09:40:35 2003 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 16:40:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Divine Intervention In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20030701234035.93292.qmail@web41102.mail.yahoo.com> The difference is who is doing the casting. In Glorantha, as well as other world there I allow DIs, the gods are bound by the Compromise. This allows them to act only through their followers, thus preventing a Gods War. I see a significant difference in having a chance to kill a person with a spell granted to you on the spot and an auto death if the god does it. Besides as a benifit a Humakti Rune Lord who survives the encounter will get to re-pray for the Sever Spirit he got in the DI. Leon Kirshtein www.godlearner.d2g.com --- lepus at anthrobunny.com wrote: > But take the case of a Rune Lord with a Sever Spirit > spell vs a Rule Lord > just calling DI and asking Humakt to sever the > spirit of Bad Guy #1, as in > my example. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com From aescleal at btinternet.com Wed Jul 2 20:02:48 2003 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (aescleal at btinternet.com) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 11:02:48 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Divine Intervention Message-ID: <5336549.1057140168074.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Leon K he say: "In which case he just as well may strike dead anyone at all since he has access to Sever Spirit. I would say no to this." Why? Humakt's THE Death God of the Heortlings. He's the only one that's got Sever Spirit as a reusable spell. If an initiate wants to risk loosing everything to cast Sever Spirit (including failing the mpt vs mpt roll) then let 'em. "Congratulations, your adventurer's killed Ugnasty the Rampant Uzdo with that improvised Sever Spirit from the Big H. Now he's got to resist 8 disruptions from his value Trollkin still around with 6 magic points." Can't see many players exposing their adventurers to that sort of Rurikian ridicule. Another way of looking at it would be: "If it could be done by magic the adventurer could cast if he'd sacrificed the POW for" then let it happen. This would (IIRC) eliminate Sever Spirit for a Humakti but potentially be able to fry any undead kicking around, give the initiate a hefty Bladesharp, Shield, Truesword, you name it, for a desperate last ditch punch up. Cheers, Ash > from: Leon Kirshtein > date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 23:26:06 > to: rq-rules at crashbox.com > subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Re: Divine Intervention > > In which case he just as well may strike dead anyone > at all since he has access to Sever Spirit. I would > say no to this. > > The most he could do, IMO, is give his follower > imediate use(uses) of of Turn Undead, but it would be > up to the follower to cast the spell. > > Leon Kirshtein > www.godlearner.d2g.com > > --- Steve Perrin wrote: > > I would say that divine Intervention cannot be used > > to do anything against > > another living creature than one of the god's other > > spells couldn't do. So a > > Humakti doing in some undead would be kosher. > > > > The main prohibition is supposed to be (or was when > > we were tweaking it > > around the time of 2nd Edition) that one god's DI > > does not work in the holy > > place of another god. > > > > Then again, Your World May Vary (otherwise known as > > YWMV) > > > > Steve Perrin > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! > http://sbc.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From aescleal at btinternet.com Wed Jul 2 20:06:56 2003 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (aescleal at btinternet.com) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 11:06:56 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Divine Intervention Message-ID: <7729805.1057140416585.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> DI for Runelords was almost identical between RQ2 and 3 - in RQ2 there was a chance of failure and a chance of the God answering for no POW cost. Either way it's going to cost on average of 5ish points of POW for a one use effect - more than most adventurers are going to want to spend. > from: Leon Kirshtein > date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 23:53:15 > to: rq-rules at crashbox.com > subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Re: Divine Intervention > > I do not use DI as Rune spell as was the case in RQ2, > I mostly use RQ3 mechanics for cult status and Rune > spells. In which case a Rune Lord with a power of 15 > will always get a DI (even if it costs him 10 POW) > while a priest still has to roll under his POW and may > kill himself. > > Leon Kirshtein > www.godlearner.d2g.com > > --- Steve Perrin wrote: > > Leon, have you evaluated this? > > > > RuneLord Quackmire the bold uses his DI to kill an > > opponent (who gets the > > usual resistance against it). Since Quackmire has a > > POW of 15, let's say he > > loses half of it, or 9 points of POW. He has to > > build this back up again. > > > > Meantime, Daphfee the Demented, High Priest of > > Humakt, uses the Sever Spirit > > he paid 3 points of POW for under controlled > > conditions and achieves exactly > > the same thing. > > > > Having had a Rune Lord thoroughly screwed after > > doing one DI, I really don't > > see the problem with Quackmire taking the chance > > here. Unless your campaign > > has ways for a Rune Lord to immediately reclaim > > expended POW, he is taking a > > helluva a long term chance for a short term gain. > > > > Steve Perrin > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Leon Kirshtein" > > To: > > Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 3:26 PM > > Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Re: Divine Intervention > > > > > > > In which case he just as well may strike dead > > anyone > > > at all since he has access to Sever Spirit. I > > would > > > say no to this. > > > > > > The most he could do, IMO, is give his follower > > > imediate use(uses) of of Turn Undead, but it would > > be > > > up to the follower to cast the spell. > > > > > > Leon Kirshtein > > > www.godlearner.d2g.com > > > > > > --- Steve Perrin wrote: > > > > I would say that divine Intervention cannot be > > used > > > > to do anything against > > > > another living creature than one of the god's > > other > > > > spells couldn't do. So a > > > > Humakti doing in some undead would be kosher. > > > > > > > > The main prohibition is supposed to be (or was > > when > > > > we were tweaking it > > > > around the time of 2nd Edition) that one god's > > DI > > > > does not work in the holy > > > > place of another god. > > > > > > > > Then again, Your World May Vary (otherwise known > > as > > > > YWMV) > > > > > > > > Steve Perrin > > > > > > ===== > Leon Kirshtein > (201) 785-9135 > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! > http://sbc.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From aescleal at btinternet.com Wed Jul 2 20:10:43 2003 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (aescleal at btinternet.com) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 11:10:43 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Divine Intervention Message-ID: <2549081.1057140643764.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> "I see a significant difference in having a chance to kill a person with a spell granted to you on the spot and an auto death if the god does it." Don't think anyone was suggesting that one old son. Cheers, Ash > from: Leon Kirshtein > date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 00:40:35 > to: rq-rules at crashbox.com > subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Re: Divine Intervention > > The difference is who is doing the casting. In > Glorantha, as well as other world there I allow DIs, > the gods are bound by the Compromise. This allows > them to act only through their followers, thus > preventing a Gods War. > > I see a significant difference in having a chance to > kill a person with a spell granted to you on the spot > and an auto death if the god does it. Besides as a > benifit a Humakti Rune Lord who survives the encounter > will get to re-pray for the Sever Spirit he got in the > DI. > > Leon Kirshtein > www.godlearner.d2g.com > > --- lepus at anthrobunny.com wrote: > > But take the case of a Rune Lord with a Sever Spirit > > spell vs a Rule Lord > > just calling DI and asking Humakt to sever the > > spirit of Bad Guy #1, as in > > my example. > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! > http://sbc.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From alan.richards75 at ntlworld.com Thu Jul 3 01:05:53 2003 From: alan.richards75 at ntlworld.com (Alan Richards) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:05:53 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Divine Intervention In-Reply-To: <20030701234502.DEB7C4C4AC@thinbits.com> Message-ID: Another of those house rules I've used for so long that I'd forgotten it was a house rule: The number of Pow lost on a successful D.I. is immediately turned into points of Rune Magic to be used THAT TURN. i.e. Orlanthi WindLord succeeds and loses 12 Pow could choose to fire off 12 points of lightning IN THAT TURN ONLY. Or 12 points of Shield. Or..... Or.... (I rule that durational spells can continue after the turn of the D.I. but if they aren't used immediately then they disappear or never existed or something). The effect all take pace on the S.R. of the D.I. (i.e. usually the character's DEX SR). I forget entirely where this idea first came from (i.e. if it came from someone on this list thanks and I'm not nicking credit). I love it. It deals with all of the points people have raised recently, and covers the one no one has mentioned. i.e. A God working in a way country to its usual nature in response to a D.I. From jurrubin at earthlink.net Wed Jul 2 23:18:27 2003 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 08:18:27 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Divine Intervention Message-ID: <5664766.1057159108701.JavaMail.nobody@bert.psp.pas.earthlink.net> Oh, I _like_ this! *sounds of an email being saved to a hard drive* David -------Original Message------- From: Alan Richards Sent: 07/02/03 10:05 AM To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Divine Intervention > > Another of those house rules I've used for so long that I'd forgotten it was a house rule: The number of Pow lost on a successful D.I. is immediately turned into points of Rune Magic to be used THAT TURN. i.e. Orlanthi WindLord succeeds and loses 12 Pow could choose to fire off 12 points of lightning IN THAT TURN ONLY. Or 12 points of Shield. Or..... Or.... (I rule that durational spells can continue after the turn of the D.I. but if they aren't used immediately then they disappear or never existed or something). The effect all take pace on the S.R. of the D.I. (i.e. usually the character's DEX SR). I forget entirely where this idea first came from (i.e. if it came from someone on this list thanks and I'm not nicking credit). I love it. It deals with all of the points people have raised recently, and covers the one no one has mentioned. i.e. A God working in a way country to its usual nature in response to a D.I. _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From soltakss at yahoo.com Thu Jul 3 01:27:53 2003 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (=?iso-8859-1?q?Simon=20Phipp?=) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:27:53 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Divine Intervention In-Reply-To: <20030701234502.DEB7C4C4AC@thinbits.com> Message-ID: <20030702152753.17298.qmail@web9603.mail.yahoo.com> This has turned out to be a longer post than I had intended, still never mind. Ash: > Simon Phipp he say: > > "Except that DI absolutely can't be used to directly harm another person > (no DIing the undead to pieces, for instance, but summoning a Fiend or > causing an earthquake is fine)." > > Why not? You saying that if Hrolf Brightsword begs Humakt for help, makes > his DI roll, loosing 10 POW then a couple of doses of "Turn Undead" from > the big H isn't going to be forthcoming? > > "Come on Humakt, give us a hand..." > > "Nope, sorry old Son. I can't use my Divine Powers to harm undead unless > you've signed form 1(a) request for Turning of not alive and not dead > beings of the first party." From lepus at anthrobunny.com Thu Jul 3 01:40:23 2003 From: lepus at anthrobunny.com (lepus at anthrobunny.com) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 08:40:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Divine Intervention In-Reply-To: <20030702152753.17298.qmail@web9603.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 2 Jul 2003, [iso-8859-1] Simon Phipp wrote: > lepus at anthrobunny.com: > > > This is exactly my take on it as well. Rune spells are just future > > promises of miracles from a god to the worshipper in exchange for a chunk > > of the worshipper's spirit. Divine Intervention is a miracle on-the-spot > > in exchange for what could be all of the worshipper's spirit. It's the > > worshipper's fault for not taking the Rune spell in the first place -- > > it's not the god's fault. > > So, in RQ2, if a Zorak Zoran PC DIs and asks for a Sever Spirit to cast at a > foe and he rolls a 01, losing 0 POW, he gets a 3 point one-use spell for 0 > POW? In RQ3, he can roll a D10 and roll 1, getting a 3 point one-use spell > for 1 POW. And that would be OK, then? Let's gloss over the fact that Rune > Lords cannot actually sacrifice for Divine Magic that is One-Use for Priests, > so he gets a spell that he couldn't have sacrificed for. OK for Rune > Lord/Priests, though. That's not quite how I run it, but it's fairly close. I'll try to explain further: Option 1: You can give up 3 permanent POW for one shot of Sever Spirit. Pro: You know what you're getting. Con: You know what you're getting. Option 2: You can wait until you're in a situation where you need to call for DI, then call for it. You give up a random amount of POW from 1 to your POW. Pro: You might get just what you need at the time. Con: You might be left a shivering weakling or dead. So, yes, it's possible for someone to take Option 2 and invest in the chance that they'll get the effects of Sever Spirit for only 1 POW. If a player rolls 01 on every DI attempt, then they're probably playing the wrong game, or they're rolling so well for everything that they won't need to call DI. Also, if someone is calling for DI that often, eventually I'll just have the god either stop answering or take their entire soul. By the way, I don't know how in your system 01 = 0 POW, but here's what I use: Initiates roll 1d100. If they roll less than their POW, that's how much POW the god takes and grants the miracle. If they roll equal to their POW, the miracle is granted but the god takes their entire soul as payment. Rune Lords roll 1d10. That's how much POW they lose, period. There's no way for someone to get DI and lose 0 POW. -- "It's great to be known, but it's even better to be known as strange." - Chairman Takeshi Kaga From soltakss at yahoo.com Thu Jul 3 01:38:03 2003 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (=?iso-8859-1?q?Simon=20Phipp?=) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:38:03 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Divine Intervention In-Reply-To: <20030701234502.DEB7C4C4AC@thinbits.com> Message-ID: <20030702153803.65669.qmail@web9607.mail.yahoo.com> Oh yeah, and another thing before I forget. NPC Rune Lords have the same rights as PC Rune Lords. Do you really want NPCs with effectively disposable POW DIing for castings of spells that they haven't got? Especially when there are more NPC Rune Lords than PC Rune Lords in most Rune Level confrontations. We are facing a bunch of Death Lords, the fight is hard and we are about to prevail, when they call on Zorak Zoran en masse, swinging spiritual clubs and striking us all down with their hellish magic. A pretty picture indeed. See Ya Simon ________________________________________________________________________ Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo! Messenger http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/ From lepus at anthrobunny.com Thu Jul 3 01:47:48 2003 From: lepus at anthrobunny.com (lepus at anthrobunny.com) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 08:47:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Divine Intervention In-Reply-To: <20030702153803.65669.qmail@web9607.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 2 Jul 2003, [iso-8859-1] Simon Phipp wrote: > Oh yeah, and another thing before I forget. > > NPC Rune Lords have the same rights as PC Rune Lords. Do you really want NPCs > with effectively disposable POW DIing for castings of spells that they > haven't got? Especially when there are more NPC Rune Lords than PC Rune Lords > in most Rune Level confrontations. > > We are facing a bunch of Death Lords, the fight is hard and we are about to > prevail, when they call on Zorak Zoran en masse, swinging spiritual clubs and > striking us all down with their hellish magic. > > A pretty picture indeed. With a 5 POW, one is pretty vulnerable. There are a *lot* of spirits around. Sure, it's easy for your POW to go up if it gets checked, but it's pretty hard to get a 5 POW checked in the first place. I wouldn't want to be playing a Rune Lord with a 5 POW. -- "It's great to be known, but it's even better to be known as strange." - Chairman Takeshi Kaga From rico at ricosweb.com Thu Jul 3 02:48:23 2003 From: rico at ricosweb.com (Rich Allen) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 10:48:23 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Divine Intervention In-Reply-To: <20030702152753.17298.qmail@web9603.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200372104823.962928@laptop> On Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:27:53 +0100 (BST), Simon Phipp wrote: >In Glorantha, the Compromise prevents gods from directly >interfering. Reason #5 for my dislike of Glorantha, but nevertheless... >We had a rule of thumb for Rune Lord DI: Healing one person was >always granted. Resurrecting one person was always granted (unless >asking Humakt or helping cult enemies). So tell me, how does a resurrection *not* count as a direct interference, but a killing does? The god granting the DI is still interfering with the events that would take place without him. Just because one event only affects the PCs and the person being healed/resurrected, and the other affects an enemy of the PC, it doesn't change the fact that both are interferences on the part of the god. Rich Allen From leonbk at yahoo.com Thu Jul 3 13:40:29 2003 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 20:40:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Divine Intervention In-Reply-To: <5336549.1057140168074.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <20030703034029.55537.qmail@web41112.mail.yahoo.com> --- aescleal at btinternet.com wrote: > Leon K he say: > > "In which case he just as well may strike dead > anyone > at all since he has access to Sever Spirit. I would > say no to this." > > Why? Humakt's THE Death God of the Heortlings. He's > the only one that's got Sever Spirit as a reusable > spell. If an initiate wants to risk loosing > everything to cast Sever Spirit (including failing > the mpt vs mpt roll) then let 'em. I think you are miss quoting me here. What I said is that Humakt himself can not kill the bad guy. He could certainly give a Sever Spirit to the initiate (or a Rune Lord) for his use as a DI. Leon Kirshtein __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com From leonbk at yahoo.com Thu Jul 3 13:43:00 2003 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 20:43:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Divine Intervention In-Reply-To: <7729805.1057140416585.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <20030703034300.6153.qmail@web41107.mail.yahoo.com> But, DI is totaly different for priests, from RQ2 to RQ3. And, yes I do think it is a waist to ask for a Sever Spirit on a DI, but its up to the player if he wishes to do so. Leon Kirshtein --- aescleal at btinternet.com wrote: > DI for Runelords was almost identical between RQ2 > and 3 - in RQ2 there was a chance of failure and a > chance of the God answering for no POW cost. > > Either way it's going to cost on average of 5ish > points of POW for a one use effect - more than most > adventurers are going to want to spend. ===== Leon Kirshtein (201) 785-9135 __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com From leonbk at yahoo.com Thu Jul 3 13:50:52 2003 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 20:50:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Divine Intervention In-Reply-To: <200372104823.962928@laptop> Message-ID: <20030703035052.96656.qmail@web41111.mail.yahoo.com> Because with Resurrection the god is working on his own follower through the link established upon initiation. His own worshipers are fair game, other god's are a no-no. Leon Kirshtein --- Rich Allen wrote: > So tell me, how does a resurrection *not* count as a > direct > interference, but a killing does? The god granting > the DI is still > interfering with the events that would take place > without him. Just > because one event only affects the PCs and the > person being > healed/resurrected, and the other affects an enemy > of the PC, it > doesn't change the fact that both are interferences > on the part of > the god. > > Rich Allen > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules ===== Leon Kirshtein (201) 785-9135 __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com From rico at ricosweb.com Thu Jul 3 14:18:40 2003 From: rico at ricosweb.com (Rich Allen) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 22:18:40 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Divine Intervention In-Reply-To: <20030703035052.96656.qmail@web41111.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200372221840.179913@laptop> On Wed, 2 Jul 2003 20:50:52 -0700 (PDT), Leon Kirshtein wrote: >Because with Resurrection the god is working on his own follower >through the link established upon initiation. His own worshipers >are fair game, other god's are a no-no. Ah, but Simon said: "Resurrecting one person was always granted (unless asking Humakt or helping cult enemies)." Which implies to me that he is allowing the Resurrection DI request of a character to be applied to anyone as long as the target doesn't belong to an enemy cult and the DIing character's god isn't Humakt. My RQ3 books are in storage, so I can't look it up, but the RQ2 rule book specifically mentions a character using a DI to raise another person from the dead, and makes no mention of cult affiliation as a requirement at all. The RQ2 version of DI does specify that DI cannot be used to harm anyone. Is RQ3 the same? Anyway, I guess my point was that if "direct interference is forbidden" is the reason behind the rule, then the rule is broken because it *does* allow direct interference unless it causes harm to someone. Also, the rule is very Glorantha-centric so most of the statements made in this thread don't apply to RQ played in non-Glorantha settings. Rich Allen From leonbk at yahoo.com Thu Jul 3 14:32:11 2003 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 21:32:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Divine Intervention In-Reply-To: <200372221840.179913@laptop> Message-ID: <20030703043211.45944.qmail@web41106.mail.yahoo.com> --- Rich Allen wrote: > On Wed, 2 Jul 2003 20:50:52 -0700 (PDT), Leon > Kirshtein wrote: > >Because with Resurrection the god is working on his > own follower > >through the link established upon initiation. His > own worshipers > >are fair game, other god's are a no-no. > > Ah, but Simon said: "Resurrecting one person was > always granted > (unless asking Humakt or helping cult enemies)." But Simon said specifically that this is his "house rules". In my world this is not the case > Which implies to me > that he is allowing the Resurrection DI request of a > character to be > applied to anyone as long as the target doesn't > belong to an enemy > cult and the DIing character's god isn't Humakt. My > RQ3 books are in > storage, so I can't look it up, but the RQ2 rule > book specifically > mentions a character using a DI to raise another > person from the > dead, and makes no mention of cult affiliation as a > requirement at all. I rule that this type of a DI would work on only members of the same or allied cults. So I am still within the frame work of 'your own followers only'. > Anyway, I guess my point was that if > "direct interference is forbidden" is the reason > behind the rule, > then the rule is broken because it *does* allow > direct interference > unless it causes harm to someone. I very much disagree with you assesment of this. I do not accept that resurection or healing of friendly cultists = direct interference. > Also, the rule is very > Glorantha-centric so most of the statements made in > this thread don't > apply to RQ played in non-Glorantha settings. I again disagree. Without such a rule of "non-interference" most worlds quickly come down to 'my god can beat up your god'. Some form of mechanism must exist to limit a gods power on the material plane and this is the best one I have seen so far. The Gloranthan example are just the ones which come to mind the quickest. Leon Kirshtein www.godlearner.d2g.com ===== Leon Kirshtein (201) 785-9135 __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com From aescleal at btinternet.com Thu Jul 3 16:46:16 2003 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (aescleal at btinternet.com) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 07:46:16 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Divine Intervention Message-ID: <6097875.1057214776246.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> "In Glorantha, the Compromise prevents gods from directly interfering." Nothing stopping them from channelling magic through a follower though - which is all Sever Spirit is from Humakt or a thunderbolt from OT. Someone calls on Orlanth and zap, 3 points of lightning at chosen target working exactly as the spell works including Mpt vs Mpt rolls. "So, giving a HeroQuestor Shield 20 is fine for a DI on a HeroQuest" Hang on a mo - I was under the impression that on HeroQuests DI generally didn't work - it'd be like the God asking themselves for it. Actually, if you were recreating a hero cult's myth it'd be alright, provided you called on the big cheese and not the hero you were following the path of. To shove the conversation back towards rules the RQIII magic book states that DI works in enemy temples as "it comes from within." Work that one out. Cheers, Ash From aescleal at btinternet.com Thu Jul 3 16:55:53 2003 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (aescleal at btinternet.com) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 07:55:53 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Divine Intervention Message-ID: <4938638.1057215353734.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> "Do you really want NPCs with effectively disposable POW DIing for castings of spells that they haven't got?" Don't see why not. It aint going to happen that often and only when their backs are up against the wall. Or keen. One quote I think probably highlights the problem we've got here: "We are facing a bunch of Death Lords" In most (all?) games I've played in that isn't likely to happen. I never quite believed the "1 in a 100" figure for the count of Runemasters given in Pavis and that's sort of stuck over the years. Problems you have in your game aren't likely to inflict mine and vice versa. Cheers, Ash From aescleal at btinternet.com Thu Jul 3 16:59:39 2003 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (aescleal at btinternet.com) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 07:59:39 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Divine Intervention Message-ID: <6934305.1057215579183.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Lepus enquires: "Rune Lords roll 1d10. That's how much POW they lose, period. There's no way for someone to get DI and lose 0 POW." Grab a copy of RQII or Rick Meints Cults Compendium reprint of the Rune Magic chapter from it. Cheers, Ash > from: lepus at anthrobunny.com > date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:40:23 > to: rq-rules at crashbox.com > subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Re: Divine Intervention > > On Wed, 2 Jul 2003, [iso-8859-1] Simon Phipp wrote: > > > lepus at anthrobunny.com: > > > > > This is exactly my take on it as well. Rune spells are just future > > > promises of miracles from a god to the worshipper in exchange for a chunk > > > of the worshipper's spirit. Divine Intervention is a miracle on-the-spot > > > in exchange for what could be all of the worshipper's spirit. It's the > > > worshipper's fault for not taking the Rune spell in the first place -- > > > it's not the god's fault. > > > > So, in RQ2, if a Zorak Zoran PC DIs and asks for a Sever Spirit to cast at a > > foe and he rolls a 01, losing 0 POW, he gets a 3 point one-use spell for 0 > > POW? In RQ3, he can roll a D10 and roll 1, getting a 3 point one-use spell > > for 1 POW. And that would be OK, then? Let's gloss over the fact that Rune > > Lords cannot actually sacrifice for Divine Magic that is One-Use for Priests, > > so he gets a spell that he couldn't have sacrificed for. OK for Rune > > Lord/Priests, though. > > That's not quite how I run it, but it's fairly close. I'll try to explain > further: > > Option 1: You can give up 3 permanent POW for one shot of Sever Spirit. > Pro: You know what you're getting. Con: You know what you're getting. > > Option 2: You can wait until you're in a situation where you need to > call for DI, then call for it. You give up a random amount of POW from 1 > to your POW. Pro: You might get just what you need at the time. Con: You > might be left a shivering weakling or dead. > > So, yes, it's possible for someone to take Option 2 and invest in the > chance that they'll get the effects of Sever Spirit for only 1 POW. If a > player rolls 01 on every DI attempt, then they're probably playing the > wrong game, or they're rolling so well for everything that they won't need > to call DI. Also, if someone is calling for DI that often, eventually > I'll just have the god either stop answering or take their entire soul. > > By the way, I don't know how in your system 01 = 0 POW, but here's what I > use: > Initiates roll 1d100. If they roll less than their POW, that's how much > POW the god takes and grants the miracle. If they roll equal to their > POW, the miracle is granted but the god takes their entire soul as > payment. > Rune Lords roll 1d10. That's how much POW they lose, period. > There's no way for someone to get DI and lose 0 POW. > > -- > "It's great to be known, but it's even > better to be known as strange." > - Chairman Takeshi Kaga > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From aescleal at btinternet.com Thu Jul 3 17:05:28 2003 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (aescleal at btinternet.com) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 08:05:28 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Divine Intervention Message-ID: <8318207.1057215928987.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Rich Allen said in reply to Simon: "In Glorantha, the Compromise prevents gods from directly interfering." "Reason #5 for my dislike of Glorantha, but nevertheless... " The compromise is not a universal myth - think of it as the lightbringer explanation as to why when your adventurer casts a rune spell it's his magic points that are used to overcome the opponents and not his God. Elsewhere they have different explanations. Gloranthan Gods are like industrialised countries - they'll flog (almost) anyone weapons if you pay 'em in POW and agree to their terms and conditions. Cheers, Ash From aescleal at btinternet.com Thu Jul 3 17:10:17 2003 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (aescleal at btinternet.com) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 08:10:17 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Divine Intervention Message-ID: <7105263.1057216217409.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> "I think you are miss quoting me here." Nope, misunderstanding which I hope is more forgivable and with no sophistry intended. Sorry 'bout that, Ash > from: Leon Kirshtein > date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 04:40:29 > to: rq-rules at crashbox.com > subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Re: Divine Intervention > > > --- aescleal at btinternet.com wrote: > > Leon K he say: > > > > "In which case he just as well may strike dead > > anyone > > at all since he has access to Sever Spirit. I would > > say no to this." > > > > Why? Humakt's THE Death God of the Heortlings. He's > > the only one that's got Sever Spirit as a reusable > > spell. If an initiate wants to risk loosing > > everything to cast Sever Spirit (including failing > > the mpt vs mpt roll) then let 'em. > > > I think you are miss quoting me here. What I said is > that Humakt himself can not kill the bad guy. He > could certainly give a Sever Spirit to the initiate > (or a Rune Lord) for his use as a DI. > > Leon Kirshtein > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! > http://sbc.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From lepus at anthrobunny.com Thu Jul 3 23:02:18 2003 From: lepus at anthrobunny.com (lepus at anthrobunny.com) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 06:02:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Divine Intervention In-Reply-To: <6934305.1057215579183.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: On Thu, 3 Jul 2003 aescleal at btinternet.com wrote: > Lepus enquires: > > "Rune Lords roll 1d10. That's how much POW they lose, period. > There's no way for someone to get DI and lose 0 POW." > > Grab a copy of RQII or Rick Meints Cults Compendium reprint of the Rune Magic chapter from it. Got it. Now what? Are you suggesting that I change my house rule? Why? -- "It's great to be known, but it's even better to be known as strange." - Chairman Takeshi Kaga From rico at ricosweb.com Thu Jul 3 23:38:31 2003 From: rico at ricosweb.com (Rich Allen) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 07:38:31 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Divine Intervention In-Reply-To: <20030703043211.45944.qmail@web41106.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20037373831.218270@laptop> On Wed, 2 Jul 2003 21:32:11 -0700 (PDT), Leon Kirshtein wrote: >I rule that this type of a DI would work on only members of the same >or allied cults. So I am still within the frame work of 'your own >followers only'. So now we're talking about *your* house rule? :) >I very much disagree with you assesment of this. I do not accept >that resurection or healing of friendly cultists = direct >interference. OK, Cult A is told by God X to seek the death of a Rune Lord, a member of Cult B, who is making trouble for Cult A. Cult A succeeds in killing the Rune Lord, who then DI's to God Y and comes back to life. God Y has directly interfered with God X's plans by negating the death of the Rune Lord. For me, it comes down like this: if a god grants a power to a mortal, to use when/how/why the mortal determines, then the god has not directly interfered. If the god uses his power directly on a mortal to change the outcome of any event, that god has directly interfered. I'm not saying it is wrong to allow the resurrection, I'm saying it's inconsistent to allow the resurrection but disallow a DI death request. >I again disagree. Without such a rule of "non-interference" most >worlds quickly come down to 'my god can beat up your god'. Some >form of mechanism must exist to limit a gods power on the material >plane and this is the best one I have seen so far. The Gloranthan >example are just the ones which come to mind the quickest. There are MANY examples of the gods directly interfering in mortal affairs in many, many games. Ever hear of an avatar?? In my 20+ years of gaming it's never been a problem. And there's no such thing as "my god can beat up your god" since each god will likely be the master of a particular domain that can be used against the other gods. A god of strength can be defeated by a god of stealth at one meeting, but on another the god of strength will win. If you play in a world where the gods are immortal then you have a continual struggle with all sides winning and losing, and the mortal followers either mimic what's going on in the heavens or ignore it as much as possible and live out their own lives. ;) Rich Allen From aescleal at btinternet.com Fri Jul 4 00:33:50 2003 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (aescleal at btinternet.com) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 15:33:50 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Divine Intervention Message-ID: <6724813.1057242830184.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> "Got it. Now what? Are you suggesting that I change my house rule? Why?" Whoaaa Tex, lay off the caffeine or something! You stated: "There's no way for someone to get DI and lose 0 POW." And, remembering that the Simon P, from previous conversations, seemed to prefer RQII I pointed you in the direction of the source for his ruling. That's all - I'm not suggesting an anything... Ash the bemused.... > from: lepus at anthrobunny.com > date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 14:02:18 > to: rq-rules at crashbox.com > subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Re: Divine Intervention > > On Thu, 3 Jul 2003 aescleal at btinternet.com wrote: > > > Lepus enquires: > > > > "Rune Lords roll 1d10. That's how much POW they lose, period. > > There's no way for someone to get DI and lose 0 POW." > > > > Grab a copy of RQII or Rick Meints Cults Compendium reprint of the Rune Magic chapter from it. > > Got it. Now what? Are you suggesting that I change my house rule? Why? > > -- > "It's great to be known, but it's even > better to be known as strange." > - Chairman Takeshi Kaga > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From lepus at anthrobunny.com Fri Jul 4 00:44:31 2003 From: lepus at anthrobunny.com (lepus at anthrobunny.com) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 07:44:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Divine Intervention In-Reply-To: <6724813.1057242830184.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: On Thu, 3 Jul 2003 aescleal at btinternet.com wrote: > "Got it. Now what? Are you suggesting that I change my house rule? Why?" > > Whoaaa Tex, lay off the caffeine or something! You stated: > > "There's no way for someone to get DI and lose 0 POW." > > And, remembering that the Simon P, from previous conversations, seemed to prefer RQII I pointed you in the direction of the source for his ruling. That's all - I'm not suggesting an anything... I said that in a particular context, though. If you quote the entirety of the message, you would see the text "Here's how I do it" just above that. Really, I don't see why you're quoting me out of context here. -- "It's great to be known, but it's even better to be known as strange." - Chairman Takeshi Kaga From soltakss at yahoo.com Fri Jul 4 02:44:34 2003 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (=?iso-8859-1?q?Simon=20Phipp?=) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 17:44:34 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Divine Intervention In-Reply-To: <20030702155103.51C4D4C4B1@thinbits.com> Message-ID: <20030703164435.42608.qmail@web9605.mail.yahoo.com> Someone stirred things up a bit. A month with almost nothing and then a whole load of stuff. Alan Richards: > Another of those house rules I've used for so long that I'd forgotten > it was a house rule: > > The number of Pow lost on a successful D.I. is immediately turned into > points of Rune Magic to be used THAT TURN. I like this, it looks as though it could work. lepus at anthrobunny.com: > Option 1: You can give up 3 permanent POW for one shot of Sever Spirit. > Pro: You know what you're getting. Con: You know what you're getting. > > Option 2: You can wait until you're in a situation where you need to > call for DI, then call for it. You give up a random amount of POW from 1 > to your POW. Pro: You might get just what you need at the time. Con: You > might be left a shivering weakling or dead. > > So, yes, it's possible for someone to take Option 2 and invest in the > chance that they'll get the effects of Sever Spirit for only 1 POW. If a > player rolls 01 on every DI attempt, then they're probably playing the > wrong game, or they're rolling so well for everything that they won't need > to call DI. Also, if someone is calling for DI that often, eventually > I'll just have the god either stop answering or take their entire soul. Favoured by the God, since he donates so much POW. > By the way, I don't know how in your system 01 = 0 POW, but here's what I > use: > Initiates roll 1d100. If they roll less than their POW, that's how much > POW the god takes and grants the miracle. If they roll equal to their > POW, the miracle is granted but the god takes their entire soul as > payment. > Rune Lords roll 1d10. That's how much POW they lose, period. > There's no way for someone to get DI and lose 0 POW. In the good old RQ2 rules, which a lot of people still use, a roll of 01-05 = 0 POW, 06-10 = 1 POW, 11-20 = 2 POW, ... , 81-90 = 9 POW, 91-95 = 10 POW and 96-100 = DI Fails and no POW lost. We played that the player could choose whether to go for guaranteed 1D10 (assuming POW > 10) RQ3-style or rolling RQ2-style for possible 0 POW loss and possible failure. lepus at anthrobunny.com: > With a 5 POW, one is pretty vulnerable. There are a *lot* of spirits > around. Sure, it's easy for your POW to go up if it gets checked, but > it's pretty hard to get a 5 POW checked in the first place. I wouldn't > want to be playing a Rune Lord with a 5 POW. Been there, done that (far too many times). You have to find skeletons and zombies to disrupt, using RQ2 rules rather than RQ3 rules (1 POW, not 3D6 MPs). The nasty thing is having to DI on under 10 POW, because that could mean losing more POW than you have. NPCs, however, have no problems with going down to low POW. Even though I said that NPCs have the same rights as PCs, they can be reckless as they are essentially disposable, to a GM anyway. Rich Allen: > >We had a rule of thumb for Rune Lord DI: Healing one person was > >always granted. Resurrecting one person was always granted= > (unless > >asking Humakt or helping cult enemies). > > So tell me, how does a resurrection *not* count as a direct > interference, but a killing does? The god granting the DI is= > still > interfering with the events that would take place without him. = > Just > because one event only affects the PCs and the person being > healed/resurrected, and the other affects an enemy of the PC, it= > > doesn't change the fact that both are interferences on the part= > of > the god. Asking for a DI to resurrect myself is fine. Asking for a DI to resurrect a party member is pushing it a bit, but we usually played that if the party was on a cult mission and the Gods were friendly or associated then the resurrect would work. However, we have had a situation where a Zorak Zorani asked for DI to bring back a Storm Bull (associate cult member) in a raid on an enemy troll clan, and the GM ruled it out, because they were attacking other Zorak Zorani. Bummer. If an Orlanthi DIs to resurrect a Storm Buller on a mission against Chaos, then that should be OK. I know that technically this could be seen as interference, but being part of a party implies some kind of shared bond, so it should be all right really. (Wearing the traditional wooly GM hat). Rich Allen: > On Wed, 2 Jul 2003 20:50:52 -0700 (PDT), Leon Kirshtein wrote: > >Because with Resurrection the god is working on his own= > follower > >through the link established upon initiation. His own= > worshipers > >are fair game, other god's are a no-no. > > Ah, but Simon said: "Resurrecting one person was always granted > (unless asking Humakt or helping cult enemies)." Which implies= > to me > that he is allowing the Resurrection DI request of a character to= > be > applied to anyone as long as the target doesn't belong to an= > enemy > cult and the DIing character's god isn't Humakt. My RQ3 books= > are in > storage, so I can't look it up, but the RQ2 rule book= > specifically > mentions a character using a DI to raise another person from the= > > dead, and makes no mention of cult affiliation as a requirement= > at > all. > > The RQ2 version of DI does specify that DI cannot be used to harm= > anyone. Is RQ3 the same? We always played the same effects for RQ3 DI as RQ2 DI, there seemed no reason to change it. Of course, we had the advantage of having played RQ2 for years before moving to RQ3, something that a lot of people haven't had. > Anyway, I guess my point was that if > "direct interference is forbidden" is the reason behind the rule,= > then the rule is broken because it *does* allow direct= > interference > unless it causes harm to someone. I think the effects of the Compromise in game terms are what the individual GMs play it as. We always played fast and loose with silly things like the rules. > Also, the rule is very > Glorantha-centric so most of the statements made in this thread= > don't > apply to RQ played in non-Glorantha settings. As I mentioned in my post. Leon Kirshtein: > --- Rich Allen wrote: > > On Wed, 2 Jul 2003 20:50:52 -0700 (PDT), Leon > > Kirshtein wrote: > > >Because with Resurrection the god is working on his > > own follower > > >through the link established upon initiation. His > > own worshipers > > >are fair game, other god's are a no-no. > > > > Ah, but Simon said: "Resurrecting one person was > > always granted > > (unless asking Humakt or helping cult enemies)." > > But Simon said specifically that this is his "house > rules". In my world this is not the case Cor, two people arguing about what I said. Doesn't that feel good? > I rule that this type of a DI would work on only > members of the same or allied cults. So I am still > within the frame work of 'your own followers only'. Lenient GMs would allow it on party members, for convenience. Think of a party as an ad hoc HeroBand (using the HeroWars term). Ash: > "In Glorantha, the Compromise prevents gods from directly interfering." > > Nothing stopping them from channelling magic through a follower though - > which is all Sever Spirit is from Humakt or a thunderbolt from OT. Someone > calls on Orlanth and zap, 3 points of lightning at chosen target working > exactly as the spell works including Mpt vs Mpt rolls. Once again, this sounds reasonable. In the same way that a Krjalki using Lie would sound reasonable. :-) > "So, giving a HeroQuestor Shield 20 is fine for a DI on a HeroQuest" > > Hang on a mo - I was under the impression that on HeroQuests DI generally > didn't work - it'd be like the God asking themselves for it. Actually, if > you were recreating a hero cult's myth it'd be alright, provided you called > on the big cheese and not the hero you were following the path of. Depends on the HeroQuest. All the early ones were based in the Real World, so Dis work just fine. It's only when you start to go across into other Planes that nasty things happen. In this case, HeroQuest = Big Adventure or Cult Mission. > To shove the conversation back towards rules the RQIII magic book states > that DI works in enemy temples as "it comes from within." Work that one > out. As it should do, in my opinion. Of course, I would draw the line at a Maran Gor DI causing an earthquake to destroy a Thed Temple, for instance. Ash: > One quote I think probably highlights the problem we've got here: > > "We are facing a bunch of Death Lords" > > In most (all?) games I've played in that isn't likely to happen. I never > quite believed the "1 in a 100" figure for the count of Runemasters given > in Pavis and that's sort of stuck over the years. Problems you have in your > game aren't likely to inflict mine and vice versa. Well, imagine a group of Yelmalions, Yelmites, Yelornans and so on attacking a Zorak Zoran Great Temple. Even if the general population of Zorak Zorani have 1% (or rather 5% is better) Rune Level, a Great Temple (1000+ worshippers) would have 10 or more Rune Levels. You might want to argue that in this situation, a concerted DI to slay desecrators would be quite reasonable. (See above for reasonableness argument). Ash: > Rich Allen said in reply to Simon: > > "In Glorantha, the Compromise prevents gods from directly interfering." > > "Reason #5 for my dislike of Glorantha, but nevertheless... " > > The compromise is not a universal myth - think of it as the lightbringer > explanation as to why when your adventurer casts a rune spell it's his > magic points that are used to overcome the opponents and not his God. > > Elsewhere they have different explanations. I wondered if anyone would bring that argument up. Bah, humbug! Wishy-washy neo-Gloranthan claptrap, if you ask me. Too many people sitting around thining of different systems for Glorantha for the sake of it. RQ2 Glorantha was far simpler - there was a Monomyth, there was a Compromise, Chaos is bad, other cults are good and that's all there is to it. Ash: > There are MANY examples of the gods directly interfering in= > mortal > affairs in many, many games. Ever hear of an avatar?? In my 20+= > years of gaming it's never been a problem. And there's no such= > thing > as "my god can beat up your god" since each god will likely be= > the > master of a particular domain that can be used against the other= > gods. A god of strength can be defeated by a god of stealth at= > one > meeting, but on another the god of strength will win. If you= > play in > a world where the gods are immortal then you have a continual > struggle with all sides winning and losing, and the mortal= > followers > either mimic what's going on in the heavens or ignore it as much= > as > possible and live out their own lives. ;) I always wondered about Avatars. Normally, the only incarnated gods are minor ones, not affected by the Gloranthan Compromise. In other worlds, you can have a situation wheer an Avatar of Ares leads an army against another avatar of Ares, and very interesting it gets. It seems as though your version of DI is a bit too powerful for me, too high level. I prefer things a little less highly powered. :-) Simon ________________________________________________________________________ Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo! Messenger http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/ From lepus at anthrobunny.com Fri Jul 4 02:53:58 2003 From: lepus at anthrobunny.com (lepus at anthrobunny.com) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 09:53:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Divine Intervention In-Reply-To: <20030703164435.42608.qmail@web9605.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 3 Jul 2003, [iso-8859-1] Simon Phipp wrote: > lepus at anthrobunny.com: > > > So, yes, it's possible for someone to take Option 2 and invest in the > > chance that they'll get the effects of Sever Spirit for only 1 POW. If a > > player rolls 01 on every DI attempt, then they're probably playing the > > wrong game, or they're rolling so well for everything that they won't need > > to call DI. Also, if someone is calling for DI that often, eventually > > I'll just have the god either stop answering or take their entire soul. > > Favoured by the God, since he donates so much POW. If the person is calling for DI once every minute of every day, I can't think of any god that would put up with that for too long, no matter how "favored" the worshipper is. -- "It's great to be known, but it's even better to be known as strange." - Chairman Takeshi Kaga From bick10 at comcast.net Fri Jul 4 04:44:25 2003 From: bick10 at comcast.net (bick10 at comcast.net) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 18:44:25 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Divine Intervention Message-ID: <20030703185553.091D54C262@thinbits.com> > Simon Phipp > NPCs, however, have no problems with going down to low POW. Even though I > said that NPCs have the same rights as PCs, they can be reckless as they are > essentially disposable, to a GM anyway. As a GM, my NPC?s are precious to me and are NOT disposable. They are all valued individuals that I love and care for. Even the blood drinking dead and disease infested Broo are loved by their GM, and the lose of each is felt deeply. How this affects the DI discussion is simple. Initiates and better try to DI at the moment of death. Tis better to live and have less POW than to die at the hands of veil blood thirsty PC?s. I agree with Simon, what is good for players is good for NPC?s. I do not go for complicated restrictions and rules on what a DI does. At the moment of death, it is often a simple ?God! Save Me!? In which the successfully DI?d god will remove the NPC from the death and, preferably, to a safe spot. Doesn?t matter if the god has Teleport, or what. IT IS A GOD!!!! Even under the restricting Glorantha comprises, a god can save and move to safety a devote follower. Personally I have are enough rules, plots, stats, HP?s, FG?s, excreta, excreta? for me to remember and keep track of, that complicated DI?s is just too much. My players rarely try for it anyway. The POW lose scares them. So, for me, the hazy results works great. The Strike They Dead effect seems a bit out of the spirit of things. But then, it may depend on the plot. Anything is possible. Especially if Gods! are in the mix. > I wondered if anyone would bring that argument up. Bah, humbug! Wishy-washy > neo-Gloranthan claptrap, if you ask me. Too many people sitting around > thining of different systems for Glorantha for the sake of it. RQ2 Glorantha > was far simpler - there was a Monomyth, there was a Compromise, Chaos is bad, > other cults are good and that's all there is to it. My campaign was an RQ3 rules with an RQ2 attitude. But I was always strong on, It?s My World attitude. Jim Bickmeyer - Don?t let others dictate your creativity. From jurrubin at earthlink.net Fri Jul 4 03:32:55 2003 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 12:32:55 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] MERP Metals in RQ Message-ID: <4388978.1057260779931.JavaMail.nobody@waldorf.psp.pas.earthlink.net> Not to take anything away from the DI thread but has anyone ever converted the various magical materials in MERP (mithril, ithilnaur, etc.) for use in BRPS/Runequest? David From leonbk at yahoo.com Fri Jul 4 06:00:10 2003 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 13:00:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Divine Intervention In-Reply-To: <20037373831.218270@laptop> Message-ID: <20030703200010.40939.qmail@web41103.mail.yahoo.com> --- Rich Allen wrote: > On Wed, 2 Jul 2003 21:32:11 -0700 (PDT), Leon > Kirshtein wrote: > > >I rule that this type of a DI would work on only > members of the same > >or allied cults. So I am still within the frame > work of 'your own followers only'. > > So now we're talking about *your* house rule? :) No, not really. Allied cultists are considered lay members, so even though they may not ask for a DI from a particular god they may still benefit. > > >I very much disagree with you assesment of this. I > do not accept > >that resurection or healing of friendly cultists = > direct > >interference. > > OK, Cult A is told by God X to seek the death of a > Rune Lord, a > member of Cult B, who is making trouble for Cult A. > Cult A succeeds > in killing the Rune Lord, who then DI's to God Y and > comes back to life. How does he DI to god Y? > > >I again disagree. Without such a rule of > "non-interference" most > >worlds quickly come down to 'my god can beat up > your god'. Some > >form of mechanism must exist to limit a gods power > on the material > >plane and this is the best one I have seen so far. > The Gloranthan > >example are just the ones which come to mind the > quickest. > > There are MANY examples of the gods directly > interfering in mortal > affairs in many, many games. Ever hear of an > avatar?? In my 20+ > years of gaming it's never been a problem. And > there's no such thing > as "my god can beat up your god" since each god will > likely be the > master of a particular domain that can be used > against the other > gods. A god of strength can be defeated by a god of > stealth at one > meeting, but on another the god of strength will > win. If you play in > a world where the gods are immortal then you have a > continual > struggle with all sides winning and losing, and the > mortal followers > either mimic what's going on in the heavens or > ignore it as much as > possible and live out their own lives. ;) My point in this argument was what this discussion was not stricktly Gloranthan in nature. The Conpromise, or some version there off may not hold sway in the games you are playing, but it is a fact for many. Leon Kirshtein www.godlearner.d2g.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com From leonbk at yahoo.com Fri Jul 4 06:04:59 2003 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 13:04:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] MERP Metals in RQ In-Reply-To: <4388978.1057260779931.JavaMail.nobody@waldorf.psp.pas.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <20030703200459.22127.qmail@web41112.mail.yahoo.com> --- David Smart wrote: > Not to take anything away from the DI thread but has > anyone ever converted the various magical materials > in MERP (mithril, ithilnaur, etc.) for use in > BRPS/Runequest? I have, but I never actually wrote any rules for it. I just assignet properties as I saw fit. Leon Kirshtein www.godlearner.d2g.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com From gerall at chromebob.com Fri Jul 4 08:35:07 2003 From: gerall at chromebob.com (Gerall Kahla) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 17:35:07 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Chaosium's future BRP stuff -- Message-ID: <3F04AF9B.1070306@chromebob.com> Hello all -- I'm cross-posting this because I thought those on the BRP, rq-rules, and altearthrq mailinglists might be interested in this email conversation I've had with the shipping dept. of Chaosium today... I apologize in advance if this offends readers of multiple lists. You know who you are . The email thread has been edited somewhat to remove conversations about my order for _De Profundis_. Is "Deluxe BRP" an oxymoron? Pax omnium veritas -- -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Chaosium Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 11:29:15 -0700 From: Fergie To: Gerall Kahla on 7/3/03 5:20 AM, Gerall Kahla at gerall at chromebob.com wrote: [snip] > I think I saw a e-mail newsletter on the website I need to > sign up for. Cthulhu games are cool, but I've been more > interested in the Basic Role Playing System and its > derivatives lately. With any luck, more genres will be > explored soon. > > Thanks for letting me ramble. Great new website design, > btw... Pax -- Hi Gerall [order stuff snipped] Chaosium would like to thank you for the accolades. You may be happy to hear that we hope to release two new BRP titles sometime soon. Keep your eyes open for a Deluxe BRP, and possibly the Egypt BRP sourcebook. [order stuff snipped] -- Thanks from the Chaosium Crew!! Fergie, the shippin' shoggoth -- Gerall Kahla, he who codes From tiberius at runequest.za.org Fri Jul 4 19:54:49 2003 From: tiberius at runequest.za.org (tiberius at runequest.za.org) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 11:54:49 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] RQ III Errata Message-ID: <43149.196.25.253.14.1057312489.squirrel@mail.wack.co.za> I received this mail through my site, can anyone assist? Looks lie she is talking about the single deluxe (perfect bound) book. I only have the booklets from the deluxe box and the games workshop editions. I am an absoute beginner at Rune Quest. I found a used book at The Frugal Muse. I am ready to get started (very slowly) On scanning through the book , I discovere that a page is missing. I have the Deluxe Ediition. Page 277-278 is missing. The front(277) has the RuneQuest Adventurer Sheet, and the back hasOfficial Errata.. Is there someone in your group who copy those two pages an send them to me? I would be grateful. As I said, I am a beginner, but I feel these pages are significant. Ciao Tony -- What does an Austrailin Ent say in greeting? . . Gidday Spruce. From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Fri Jul 4 20:01:40 2003 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 11:01:40 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Chaosium's future BRP stuff -- Message-ID: >Hello all -- > >I'm cross-posting this because I thought those on the BRP, >rq-rules, and altearthrq mailinglists might be interested in >this email conversation I've had with the shipping dept. of >Chaosium today... I apologize in advance if this offends >readers of multiple lists. You know who you are . > >The email thread has been edited somewhat to remove >conversations about my order for _De Profundis_. > >Is "Deluxe BRP" an oxymoron? > >Pax omnium veritas -- > >>Chaosium would like to thank you for the accolades. You may >>be happy to hear that we hope to release two new BRP titles >>sometime soon. Keep your eyes open for a Deluxe BRP, and >>possibly the Egypt BRP sourcebook. Glad to see that the hopeful signs (the re-issue of BRP and the launch of Cthulhu Dar Ages) are continuing. I would guess (but certainly don't know for sure!) that BRP Deluxe is an English language translation of the expanded French version (BaSIC? Can't remember...) and IIRC there was a French or Italian based BRP game wasn't there? I shall watch Chaosium's site with interest... Cheers, Nick Middleton From tiberius at runequest.za.org Fri Jul 4 20:38:15 2003 From: tiberius at runequest.za.org (tiberius at runequest.za.org) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 12:38:15 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Site Update Message-ID: <51430.196.25.253.14.1057315095.squirrel@mail.wack.co.za> Greetings. I posted a new quiz and poll on my site.. My brotehr also wrote a nice little article called Black Wurt, could be of use. http://www.runequest.za.org/ Oh, BTW, if anyone happens to have downloaded, copied or primnted my May campaign journal, please contact me, twit here deleted it with no backup. Cheers Tony -- What does an Austrailin Ent say in greeting? . . Gidday Spruce. From jellen at ameritech.net Fri Jul 4 21:06:30 2003 From: jellen at ameritech.net (J and/or Ellen) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 06:06:30 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Divine Intervention References: <200372221840.179913@laptop> Message-ID: <001e01c3421c$52ecbd30$3410fea9@frkt5> How is the rule Glorantha-centric? I'm not familiar with any pantheons in which the gods actually butt heads in the Mundane Plane. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rich Allen" To: Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 11:18 PM Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Re: Divine Intervention ...The RQ2 version of DI does specify that DI cannot be used to harm anyone. Is RQ3 the same? Anyway, I guess my point was that if "direct interference is forbidden" is the reason behind the rule, then the rule is broken because it *does* allow direct interference unless it causes harm to someone. Also, the rule is very Glorantha-centric so most of the statements made in this thread don't apply to RQ played in non-Glorantha settings. Rich Allen _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From soltakss at yahoo.com Fri Jul 4 22:22:10 2003 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (=?iso-8859-1?q?Simon=20Phipp?=) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 13:22:10 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Divine Intervention In-Reply-To: <20030704100903.D94104C4AB@thinbits.com> Message-ID: <20030704122210.61302.qmail@web9608.mail.yahoo.com> Ash: > And, remembering that the Simon P, from previous conversations, seemed to > prefer RQII I pointed you in the direction of the source for his ruling. Actually, if I had to choose a system, I would prefer RQ3. But I use the bits from RQ2, RQ4 and extra rules where they fit best. RQ2 had a better feel, though. Lepus (hopping around like a really mad bunny): > > "There's no way for someone to get DI and lose 0 POW." > > > > And, remembering that the Simon P, from previous conversations, seemed to > prefer RQII I pointed you in the direction of the source for his ruling. > That's all - I'm not suggesting an anything... > > I said that in a particular context, though. If you quote the entirety of > the message, you would see the text "Here's how I do it" just above that. > Really, I don't see why you're quoting me out of context here. Actually, before things get even more heated and before bunnies get boiled, here is the original question: > > By the way, I don't know how in your system 01 = 0 POW, but here's what I > > use: > > Initiates roll 1d100. If they roll less than their POW, that's how much > > POW the god takes and grants the miracle. If they roll equal to their > > POW, the miracle is granted but the god takes their entire soul as > > payment. > > Rune Lords roll 1d10. That's how much POW they lose, period. > > There's no way for someone to get DI and lose 0 POW. Ash simply said that in the RQ2 DI rules, 01 = 0 POW loss. A simple answer to a simple question. Are we a happy bunny now? Lepus: > If the person is calling for DI once every minute of every day, I can't > think of any god that would put up with that for too long, no matter how > "favored" the worshipper is. Surely, once a week is the DI limit? We played that for years, then I let the PCs DI as often as they wanted. In a high level game with a dangerous scenario that can be a mixed blessing - watch the POW-meter go down. Jim Bickmeyer: > As a GM, my NPC?s are precious to me and are NOT disposable. They are all > valued individuals that I love and care for. Even the blood drinking dead > and > disease infested Broo are loved by their GM, and the lose of each is felt > deeply. But when you've lost as many NPCs as I have, you get hardened to them being hacked apart. Spending 2 weeks crafting an NPC who is designed as a long-running plot vehicle, only for the players to decide that he is an enemy and killing him in a couple of rounds does not lend itself to being committed to NPCs. For those who have checked out my campaign descriptions, I was attached to Uzarl, the Giant King of Neverdead and the Mistress of Light, Guardian of the Fires of Heaven, but they were all vampires and so were special. Simon ________________________________________________________________________ Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo! Messenger http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/ From gianni at basicrps.com Fri Jul 4 22:33:38 2003 From: gianni at basicrps.com (gianni at basicrps.com) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 14:33:38 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Chaosium's future BRP stuff -- In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1057322018.3f0574220bb76@imp.webhuset.no> Quoting Nick.Middleton at invensys.com: > I would guess (but certainly don't know for sure!) that BRP Deluxe is an > English language translation of the expanded French version (BaSIC? Can't > remember...) and IIRC there was a French or Italian based BRP game wasn't > there? There were both a French and an Italian beefed-up versions of the basic role- playing system. Both were called 'Basic'; they were pretty similar to each other, but they were not completely the same set of rules. I felt the Italian version was closer to Steve's _Magic World_, with other settings explored through additional booklets, whilst the French version had more original rules and was more setting-agnostic (there were both a fantasy adventure and a contemporary adventure in the booklet). Gianni (who owns both) From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Fri Jul 4 23:01:53 2003 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 14:01:53 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Chaosium's future BRP stuff -- Message-ID: >> I would guess (but certainly don't know for sure!) that BRP Deluxe is an >> English language translation of the expanded French version (BaSIC? Can't >> remember...) and IIRC there was a French or Italian based BRP game wasn't >> there? > >There were both a French and an Italian beefed-up versions of the basic role- >playing system. Both were called 'Basic'; they were pretty similar to each >other, but they were not completely the same set of rules. I felt the Italian >version was closer to Steve's _Magic World_, with other settings explored >through additional booklets, whilst the French version had more original rules >and was more setting-agnostic (there were both a fantasy adventure and a >contemporary adventure in the booklet). > >Gianni >(who owns both) Cheers for that. I do actually have Stephen Posey (et al's) translation of the French version (d'oh!), although on reflection I do wonder whether Chaosium might have chosen to use Worlds of Wonder as the basis for BRP Deluxe... We will have to wait and see what they announce I guess. The real question is, will they do a Basic Role Playing Trademark License, so anybody can publish a BRP game provided it excludes basic character generation, carries the BRP logo and a note saying "Requires Chaosium's Deluxe Basic Role Playing"? Just wondering... ;-) Cheers, Nick Middleton From gerall at chromebob.com Fri Jul 4 23:35:50 2003 From: gerall at chromebob.com (Gerall Kahla) Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2003 08:35:50 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Chaosium's future BRP stuff -- In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3F0582B6.1020408@chromebob.com> [snip] > The real question is, will they do a Basic Role Playing > Trademark License, so anybody can publish a BRP game > provided it excludes basic character generation, carries > the BRP logo and a note saying "Requires Chaosium's > Deluxe Basic Role Playing"? Just wondering... > > ;-) This wouldn't offend me at all... Just look at the renaissance in D&D gaming that particular hack has created! There are more supplements written for d20 in a month than there have been for RQ and BRP in the last year combined. Yeah, some of them are not high-quality works, but I really wouldn't mind seeing a huge lot of new books for this system. It can't hurt. I'd even read the stinkers! [begin tirade] Honestly, I was stunned to read the new D&D Player's Handbook. I realized that the rules were set up exactly like RQ2; you rolled up a character and chose a profession / class (cult). After experience, that character becomes good enough to qualify for prestige classes (rune level/allied cult training). To their credit, WotC has created a wonderful, detailed gaming world with the new Forgotten Realms books. There are as many cultures in the 'Realms as in Glorantha; with full write ups for prestige classes and unique magic. (I'm reading through _Unapproachable East_ right now...) What's interesting to me is that noone's called WotC on it! They did a masterful job of dressing the system up to not use d% rolls. [end tirade] I'll get off my soapbox now. I'm enjoying translating d20 books for use with RQ/BRP. Now, let's see if Chaosium will pick up the habit of publishing supplements for it again so I don't have to use other worlds for my games. -- Gerall Kahla, he who codes From rico at ricosweb.com Fri Jul 4 23:59:48 2003 From: rico at ricosweb.com (Rich Allen) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 07:59:48 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Chaosium's future BRP stuff -- In-Reply-To: <3F0582B6.1020408@chromebob.com> Message-ID: <20037475948.761635@laptop> On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 08:35:50 -0500, Gerall Kahla wrote: >[begin tirade] Honestly, I was stunned to read the new D&D Player's >Handbook. I realized that the rules were set up exactly like RQ2; >you rolled up a character and chose a profession / class (cult). >After experience, that character becomes good enough to qualify for >prestige classes (rune level/allied cult training). >What's interesting to me is that noone's called WotC on it! They did >a masterful job of dressing the system up to not use d% rolls. [end >tirade] It's been noted many times since 3rd edition was released. I don't have any references, so treat this as hear-say, but I'm sure I read that at least two of the authors of D&D 3E mentioned RQ3 as an inspiration source. After all, WotC is owned by Hasbro, and so is all of the RQ3 material produced by The Avalon Hill. Nothing wrong with combining the good parts of other RPGs into D&D, in my opinion; especially when everything is staying in the family, so to speak. Rich From tcantine at incentre.net Sat Jul 5 05:28:29 2003 From: tcantine at incentre.net (Thomas M. Cantine) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 12:28:29 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: RQ3 errata from Deluxe Edition Message-ID: If I recall correctly, I found that very same piece of text, i.e. the Official Errata, online somewhere before I bought the Deluxe Edition itself. I just now googled for a key phrase or two, and found the Errata at: www.msu.edu/user/moulinfr/Errata.html As for the character sheet, I have a pad of the official ones and could probably mail one to your friend. But there are custom ones available in PDF and other formats in various places around the web, which might be a more economical solution as it involves moving bits and not atoms... >Message: 10 >Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 11:54:49 +0200 (SAST) >From: tiberius at runequest.za.org >To: rq-rules at crashbox.com >Subject: [RQ-Rules] RQ III Errata >Reply-To: rq-rules at crashbox.com > >I received this mail through my site, can anyone assist? Looks lie she is >talking about the single deluxe (perfect bound) book. I only have the >booklets from the deluxe box and the games workshop editions. > >I am an absoute beginner at Rune Quest. I found a used book at The >Frugal Muse. I am ready to get started (very slowly) On scanning >through the book , I discovere that a page is missing. I have the >Deluxe Ediition. Page 277-278 is missing. The front(277) has the >RuneQuest Adventurer Sheet, and the back hasOfficial Errata.. Is there >someone in your group who copy those two pages an send them to me? I >would be grateful. As I said, I am a beginner, but I feel these pages >are significant. > >Ciao >Tony > > >-- >What does an Austrailin Ent say in greeting? >. >. >Gidday Spruce. > > >--__--__-- > >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > >End of RQ-Rules Digest /=================================\ | Thomas M. Cantine | | "Will Think For Food" | \=================================/ http://www.incentre.net/tcantine From alan.richards75 at ntlworld.com Sat Jul 5 04:54:26 2003 From: alan.richards75 at ntlworld.com (Alan Richards) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 19:54:26 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: MERPS metals In-Reply-To: <20030704100903.D94104C4AB@thinbits.com> Message-ID: I have been part of Runequest rules LoTR campaign off and on for a couple of years now. One of the truly easy rules decisions was that Middle Earth Mithril uses the same rules as Gloranthan Iron. (Except that it is poisonous to Orcs not Elves). I read the Silmarillion once and it nearly killed me, and have not even attempted much of the other non-LoTR novels so haven't a clue what ithilnaur is. Alan From slposey at concentric.net Sat Jul 5 06:59:34 2003 From: slposey at concentric.net (Stephen Posey) Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2003 14:59:34 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Chaosium's future BRP stuff -- References: Message-ID: <3F05EAB6.72B370E3@concentric.net> Nick.Middleton at invensys.com wrote: > > >Hello all -- > > > >I'm cross-posting this because I thought those on the BRP, > >rq-rules, and altearthrq mailinglists might be interested in > >this email conversation I've had with the shipping dept. of > >Chaosium today... I apologize in advance if this offends > >readers of multiple lists. You know who you are . > > > >The email thread has been edited somewhat to remove > >conversations about my order for _De Profundis_. > > > >Is "Deluxe BRP" an oxymoron? > > > >Pax omnium veritas -- > > > >>Chaosium would like to thank you for the accolades. You may > >>be happy to hear that we hope to release two new BRP titles > >>sometime soon. Keep your eyes open for a Deluxe BRP, and > >>possibly the Egypt BRP sourcebook. > > Glad to see that the hopeful signs (the re-issue of BRP and the launch of > Cthulhu Dar Ages) are continuing. > > I would guess (but certainly don't know for sure!) that BRP Deluxe is an > English language translation of the expanded French version (BaSIC? Can't > remember...) and IIRC there was a French or Italian based BRP game wasn't > there? I shall watch Chaosium's site with interest... That would be VERY interesting considering I only recently translated the French version for my own purposes and amusement (hey I'm a sucker for punishment! ;-)). I'd love to see some of the BaSIC materials released in French and Italian as English supplements. I also think Chaosium would be well served to release some version of the BRP rules as an "open license" game system, the d20 juggernaut needs some competition. Stephen Posey slposey at concentric.net From slposey at concentric.net Sat Jul 5 07:04:58 2003 From: slposey at concentric.net (Stephen Posey) Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2003 15:04:58 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Chaosium's future BRP stuff -- References: <3F0582B6.1020408@chromebob.com> Message-ID: <3F05EBFA.205378D0@concentric.net> Gerall Kahla wrote: [snip] > I'll get off my soapbox now. I'm enjoying translating d20 > books for use with RQ/BRP. Now, let's see if Chaosium will > pick up the habit of publishing supplements for it again so > I don't have to use other worlds for my games. I'd be interested to hear anything you might have to say on how the translating efforts are going. Which books are you doing that to? Any particular snags you've encountered or tips on how best to proceed? Stephen Posey slposey at concentric.net From gerall at chromebob.com Sat Jul 5 14:53:02 2003 From: gerall at chromebob.com (Gerall Kahla) Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2003 23:53:02 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] adapting d20 stuff to RQ/BRP -- Message-ID: <3F0659AE.5060607@chromebob.com> Stephen Posey wrote: > I'd be interested to hear anything you might have to say > on how the translating efforts are going. > > Which books are you doing that to? Any particular snags > you've encountered or tips on how best to proceed? Since 3rd edition, the chore has gotten *much* easier... Right now, I'm still fleshing out my psionics system (which is keeping me from complete d20 translation mode). My Players are running Githyanki "Illithid Hunters", so my efforts are focused in that direction. I have done some work on creating RQ versions of certain D&D creatures. My bestiary can be found at under the section called [my BRP/RQ system stuff]. Adaptations of the Dark Sun (or Athasian) PC races can be found at and a rough guide to using RQ sorcery for Preservers and Defilers for Athas can be found at After I get my psi system fully under control, I'm going to probably use Tal Meta's write-up for the cult of Lolth and expand on the _Creatures of Faerun_ book. Also, I bought a really cool supplement out from Bastion Press entitled _Airships_, but that will probably hold for the future... At the end of the page about Dark Sun creatures, there's a poorly written-up treatise on how to convert D&D creatures to RQ stats which hits (what I consider to be) the big points: - accurate SIZ translation - base damage for personal weapons - playing a 'monster' race - species maximum for stats and how they define a species' ability to work in their environment I'm very interested in seeing how others' efforts in this direction have gone!! Anyone else willing to post something to the list? Right now, I need sleep -- Pax -- Gerall Kahla, he who codes From aescleal at btinternet.com Sat Jul 5 20:21:47 2003 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (Ashley Munday) Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2003 11:21:47 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Rune Power In-Reply-To: <3F0659AE.5060607@chromebob.com> Message-ID: <000201c342df$3d91a040$93b97ad5@mastakos> Morning all, All this talk of Divine Intervention and what it can do has made me wonder if anyone uses the two RuneMagic varients proposed in (IIRC) TotRM 12? For them that don't know they were: RunePower ========= Rune magic users don't learn specific spells but instead pile all their sacrificed POW into one pool which can be used on any Rune magic their God supplies. There are loads of variants on this including how you learn spells, the effects of temples etc. Reusable Magic For Initiates ============================ When an initiate casts a spell it's not one use and that's all folks. Their frequency of use is far lower than acolytes or priests but at least once per year they can regain a spell they've cast (I think the original idea was after at least one high holy day had passed from the casting). If you use RunePower do you allow Priests to add that POW onto their own for DI attempts? Likewise, if you use reusable magic for initiates, what recovery rules do you use? Cheers, Ash From jurrubin at earthlink.net Sun Jul 6 01:39:31 2003 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (D. Smart) Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2003 10:39:31 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: MERPS metals References: Message-ID: <3F06F133.6060208@earthlink.net> Whoohoo! I found my MERP "Moria" supplement! On pgs. 34-35, it has descriptions and MERP rules for the various metals. Ithilnaur is a hardened version of the metal used for moon runes on Moria's gates which itself is an alloy of mithril and other metals. As far as I remember, only the metals mithril and eog were mentioned in Tolkien's works. Eog is described in The Silmarillion as a black metal developed by a reclusive Noldo, who's name escapes me. According to MERP, however, eog is a tougher-than-titanium blend of mithril, titanium, and other metals and comes in either a white or red color, both of which are lusterless. In the "Moria" supplement, iron is the base metal (rating 0). Given that assumption, the various metals have the following ratings: Bronze -10 Iron 0 Mithril +20 Eog +30 To state it with bronze as the base metal, Bronze 0 Iron +10 Mithril +30 Eog +40 If the assumption is made that every +10 equals a 50% increase in armor points, then 1) iron item APs = bronze item AP x 1.5, 2) mithril item APs = bronze AP x 2.5, and 3) eog item APs = bronze APs x 3. The rest of the MERP metals (including ) wouldn't be considered "Tolkien-approved" metals. Alan Richards wrote: > I have been part of Runequest rules LoTR campaign off and on for a > couple of years now. One of the truly easy rules decisions was that > Middle Earth Mithril uses the same rules as Gloranthan Iron. (Except > that it is poisonous to Orcs not Elves). > > I read the Silmarillion once and it nearly killed me, and have not > even attempted much of the other non-LoTR novels so haven't a clue > what ithilnaur is. > > Alan > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From steve at perrinworlds.com Sun Jul 6 02:04:48 2003 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Steve Perrin) Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2003 09:04:48 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Rune Power References: <000201c342df$3d91a040$93b97ad5@mastakos> Message-ID: <000201c34310$612813a0$f4407442@wizard> SPQR uses a variation of the Rune Power rules. Everyone who uses Divine Magic gets them. I don't make the class distinctions between priests and initiates. They are all "holy people." Steve Perrin www.perrinworlds.com/SPQR.html ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ashley Munday" To: Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2003 3:21 AM Subject: [RQ-Rules] Rune Power > Morning all, > > All this talk of Divine Intervention and what it can do has made me wonder > if anyone uses the two RuneMagic varients proposed in (IIRC) TotRM 12? > > For them that don't know they were: > > RunePower > ========= > > Rune magic users don't learn specific spells but instead pile all their > sacrificed POW into one pool which can be used on any Rune magic their God > supplies. > > There are loads of variants on this including how you learn spells, the > effects of temples etc. > > Reusable Magic For Initiates > ============================ > > When an initiate casts a spell it's not one use and that's all folks. Their > frequency of use is far lower than acolytes or priests but at least once per > year they can regain a spell they've cast (I think the original idea was > after at least one high holy day had passed from the casting). > > If you use RunePower do you allow Priests to add that POW onto their own for > DI attempts? > > Likewise, if you use reusable magic for initiates, what recovery rules do > you use? > > Cheers, > > Ash > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From jurrubin at earthlink.net Sun Jul 6 03:34:43 2003 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (D. Smart) Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2003 12:34:43 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: MERPS metals References: <3F06F133.6060208@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <3F070C33.2090902@earthlink.net> Sorry, all. The last line in my previous email should have read: "The rest of the MERP metals (including _ithilnaur_) wouldn't be considered "Tolkien-approved" metals." D. Smart wrote: > Whoohoo! I found my MERP "Moria" supplement! On pgs. 34-35, it has > descriptions and MERP rules for the various metals. > > Ithilnaur is a hardened version of the metal used for moon runes on > Moria's gates which itself is an alloy of mithril and other metals. As > far as I remember, only the metals mithril and eog were mentioned in > Tolkien's works. Eog is described in The Silmarillion as a black metal > developed by a reclusive Noldo, who's name escapes me. > > According to MERP, however, eog is a tougher-than-titanium blend of > mithril, titanium, and other metals and comes in either a white or red > color, both of which are lusterless. > > In the "Moria" supplement, iron is the base metal (rating 0). Given > that assumption, the various metals have the following ratings: > Bronze -10 > Iron 0 > Mithril +20 > Eog +30 > > To state it with bronze as the base metal, > Bronze 0 > Iron +10 > Mithril +30 > Eog +40 > > If the assumption is made that every +10 equals a 50% increase in > armor points, then > 1) iron item APs = bronze item AP x 1.5, > 2) mithril item APs = bronze AP x 2.5, and > 3) eog item APs = bronze APs x 3. > > The rest of the MERP metals (including ) wouldn't be considered > "Tolkien-approved" metals. > > Alan Richards wrote: > >> I have been part of Runequest rules LoTR campaign off and on for a >> couple of years now. One of the truly easy rules decisions was that >> Middle Earth Mithril uses the same rules as Gloranthan Iron. (Except >> that it is poisonous to Orcs not Elves). >> >> I read the Silmarillion once and it nearly killed me, and have not >> even attempted much of the other non-LoTR novels so haven't a clue >> what ithilnaur is. >> >> Alan >> >> _______________________________________________ >> RQ-Rules mailing list >> RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >> http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules >> http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules >> > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From aescleal at btinternet.com Sun Jul 6 05:04:23 2003 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (aescleal at btinternet.com) Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2003 20:04:23 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Rune Power Message-ID: <3181696.1057431863078.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> I've been trying to make "priest" more a position of political power than necessarily representing a tie to a Deity so the idea of giving everyone reusable rune magic was quite appealing on those grounds. Cheers, Ash > from: Steve Perrin > date: Sat, 05 Jul 2003 17:04:48 > to: rq-rules at crashbox.com > subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Rune Power > > SPQR uses a variation of the Rune Power rules. Everyone who uses Divine > Magic gets them. I don't make the class distinctions between priests and > initiates. They are all "holy people." > > Steve Perrin > www.perrinworlds.com/SPQR.html > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ashley Munday" > To: > Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2003 3:21 AM > Subject: [RQ-Rules] Rune Power > > > > Morning all, > > > > All this talk of Divine Intervention and what it can do has made me wonder > > if anyone uses the two RuneMagic varients proposed in (IIRC) TotRM 12? > > > > For them that don't know they were: > > > > RunePower > > ========= > > > > Rune magic users don't learn specific spells but instead pile all their > > sacrificed POW into one pool which can be used on any Rune magic their God > > supplies. > > > > There are loads of variants on this including how you learn spells, the > > effects of temples etc. > > > > Reusable Magic For Initiates > > ============================ > > > > When an initiate casts a spell it's not one use and that's all folks. > Their > > frequency of use is far lower than acolytes or priests but at least once > per > > year they can regain a spell they've cast (I think the original idea was > > after at least one high holy day had passed from the casting). > > > > If you use RunePower do you allow Priests to add that POW onto their own > for > > DI attempts? > > > > Likewise, if you use reusable magic for initiates, what recovery rules do > > you use? > > > > Cheers, > > > > Ash > > > > _______________________________________________ > > RQ-Rules mailing list > > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From leonbk at yahoo.com Sun Jul 6 05:24:03 2003 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2003 12:24:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] adapting d20 stuff to RQ/BRP -- In-Reply-To: <3F0659AE.5060607@chromebob.com> Message-ID: <20030705192403.57297.qmail@web41114.mail.yahoo.com> --- Gerall Kahla wrote: > I have done some work on creating RQ versions of > certain D&D > creatures. My bestiary can be found at > under the section > called [my BRP/RQ system stuff]. I found it to be very interesting. My only comment is that you need to re-figure the species max scores for your creatures. A species maximum is calculated by adding the min score to the max score therefore 3d6 = 3 + 18 = 21. You can also think of it as double the average score. In cases where additions are made to the dice like 2d6+6 you must take this into account. 2d6+6 = 8 + 18 = 26 2d6+3 = 20 2d6+6 = 26 3d6+3 = 27 3d6+6 = 33 ===== Leon Kirshtein www.godlearner.d2g.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com From gianni at basicrps.com Sun Jul 6 07:25:46 2003 From: gianni at basicrps.com (basicrps.com) Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2003 23:25:46 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Chaosium's future BRP stuff -- References: <20037475948.761635@laptop> Message-ID: <006701c3433b$fff62a00$a34c24d5@PC00218> Hey >[begin tirade] Honestly, I was stunned to read the new D&D Player's >Handbook. I realized that the rules were set up exactly like RQ2; It's been noted many times since 3rd edition was released. I don't have any references, so treat this as hear-say, but I'm sure I read that at least two of the authors of D&D 3E mentioned RQ3 as an inspiration source. >>> In this interview to Casus Belli, the foremost French rpg magazine: http://www.casusbelli.com/mag/004/createurs/tweet.html, Jonathan Tweet clearly states that the aim of the 3rd edition of D&D was to make a quasi-RQ game. Excerpts: les comp?tences gagnent en importance. cette id?e vient de RuneQuest Quelles sont les diff?rences majeures entre la seconde et la troisi?me ?dition ? Dans la troisi?me ?dition, il n'y a plus qu'un seul syst?me qui permet de tout g?rer : les attaques, les jets de sauvegarde, les jets de comp?tence, exactement comme ? RuneQuest Gianni From gerall at chromebob.com Sun Jul 6 12:13:10 2003 From: gerall at chromebob.com (Gerall Kahla) Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2003 21:13:10 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] adapting d20 stuff to RQ/BRP -- In-Reply-To: <20030705192403.57297.qmail@web41114.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20030705192403.57297.qmail@web41114.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <3F0785B6.30004@chromebob.com> Leon Kirshtein wrote: [snip] > I found it to be very interesting. My only comment is > that you need to re-figure the species max scores for > your creatures. > > A species maximum is calculated by adding the min > score to the max score therefore 3d6 = 3 + 18 = 21. > You can also think of it as double the average score. I have been using the formula of (max roll + number of dice) = species max. For instances where a species gets to roll 2d6+6, the +6 counts as a 'die', so 2d6+6 would get a 18+3 = 21 species max for this stat. > In cases where additions are made to the dice like > 2d6+6 you must take this into account. 2d6+6 = 8 + 18 > = 26 > > 2d6+3 = 20 > 2d6+6 = 26 > 3d6+3 = 27 > 3d6+6 = 33 Have I been doing this wrong all this time? Wow -- I'll have to re-read my RQ3 rulebook about species max scores... Fortunately, it's not too hard to edit a webpage after the fact. I hope you enjoy the monsters. Beholders and behir are going on the list shortly... -- Gerall Kahla, he who codes From jurrubin at earthlink.net Sun Jul 6 13:47:10 2003 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (D. Smart) Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2003 22:47:10 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Chaosium's future BRP stuff -- References: <20037475948.761635@laptop> <006701c3433b$fff62a00$a34c24d5@PC00218> Message-ID: <3F079BBE.3050109@earthlink.net> *stunned look* Huh?!? D&D 3E was inspired by RQ? Has my dream come true? Time for me to really look over D&D 3E! David basicrps.com wrote: >Hey > > > >>[begin tirade] Honestly, I was stunned to read the new D&D Player's >>Handbook. I realized that the rules were set up exactly like RQ2; >> >> > >It's been noted many times since 3rd edition was released. I don't >have any references, so treat this as hear-say, but I'm sure I read >that at least two of the authors of D&D 3E mentioned RQ3 as an >inspiration source. > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From slposey at concentric.net Sun Jul 6 14:31:16 2003 From: slposey at concentric.net (Stephen Posey) Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2003 22:31:16 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] adapting d20 stuff to RQ/BRP -- References: <3F0659AE.5060607@chromebob.com> Message-ID: <3F07A614.1B294B54@concentric.net> Gerall Kahla wrote: > > Stephen Posey wrote: > > > I'd be interested to hear anything you might have to say > > on how the translating efforts are going. > > > > Which books are you doing that to? Any particular snags > > you've encountered or tips on how best to proceed? > > Since 3rd edition, the chore has gotten *much* easier... > > Right now, I'm still fleshing out my psionics system (which > is keeping me from complete d20 translation mode). My > Players are running Githyanki "Illithid Hunters", so my > efforts are focused in that direction. Ooooh, very cool! Illithids and Githyanki are actually the two D&D races highest on my list of desired BRP conversions. And handling Psionics has been my major stumbling block so far as well, how's that coming along? > After I get my psi system fully under control, I'm going to > probably use Tal Meta's write-up for the cult of Lolth > and expand on the _Creatures of > Faerun_ book. Also, I bought a really cool supplement out > from Bastion Press entitled _Airships_, but that will > probably hold for the future... I've seen Airships myself, also very cool. Are you planning to try to match them to the BRP ship rules (a la RQ-Vikings or Stormbringer/Elric) in some fashion? In any case, sounds painful and fun ;-) thanks for sharing. Stephen Posey slposey at concentric.net From lepus at anthrobunny.com Sun Jul 6 14:39:04 2003 From: lepus at anthrobunny.com (lepus at anthrobunny.com) Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2003 21:39:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Chaosium's future BRP stuff -- In-Reply-To: <3F079BBE.3050109@earthlink.net> Message-ID: On Sat, 5 Jul 2003, D. Smart wrote: > *stunned look* > > Huh?!? D&D 3E was inspired by RQ? Has my dream come true? > > Time for me to really look over D&D 3E! Inspired, perhaps, but d20/D&D3E really takes its system from Ars Magica (Tweet), Talislanta (Tweet), and Rolemaster (Cook). -- "It's great to be known, but it's even better to be known as strange." - Chairman Takeshi Kaga From alan.richards75 at ntlworld.com Sun Jul 6 20:16:25 2003 From: alan.richards75 at ntlworld.com (Alan Richards) Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 11:16:25 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Divine Magic variants In-Reply-To: <20030705103403.02B4C4C4AA@thinbits.com> Message-ID: > > > Morning all, > > All this talk of Divine Intervention and what it can do has made me > wonder > if anyone uses the two RuneMagic varients proposed in (IIRC) TotRM 12? > > For them that don't know they were: > > RunePower > ========= > > Rune magic users don't learn specific spells but instead pile all their > sacrificed POW into one pool which can be used on any Rune magic their > God > supplies. > > There are loads of variants on this including how you learn spells, the > effects of temples etc. > > Reusable Magic For Initiates > ============================ > > When an initiate casts a spell it's not one use and that's all folks. > Their > frequency of use is far lower than acolytes or priests but at least > once per > year they can regain a spell they've cast (I think the original idea > was > after at least one high holy day had passed from the casting). > > If you use RunePower do you allow Priests to add that POW onto their > own for > DI attempts? > > Likewise, if you use reusable magic for initiates, what recovery rules > do > you use? > > Cheers, > > Ash > > > > --__--__-- > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > End of RQ-Rules Digest > > I've used both of these. Not from ToTRM. Again a rule I picked from from someone / somewhere / some rules digest and have used for a long time. 1. Calculating Runepower pool Base pool = (Pow-15) - minimum of 0 Status Bonus* Lay member - - Initiate +1 x1 High Initiate +2 x2 Acolyte +3 x3 Rune Level +4 x4 *if the base pool is 0 then add the bonus. If the Base pool is greater than 0 then multiply. 2. Frequency of renewal Status Frequency Lay member annual (High Holy Day) Initiate seasonally (holy Day) High Initiate monthly Acolyte weekly Rune Level daily (daily prayers) NOTE: This does actually reduce the Divine power of Acolytes. But since I rule that there is now no such thing as one-use Rune Magic (excepting enchantments where the Pow must be permanently sacrificed) everyone wins. From jurrubin at earthlink.net Sun Jul 6 22:24:31 2003 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (D. Smart) Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2003 07:24:31 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Chaosium's future BRP stuff -- References: Message-ID: <3F0814FF.9030108@earthlink.net> All three of which I wanted nothing to do with because of how their rule sets compared with the elegance of RQ. Bummer. David lepus at anthrobunny.com wrote: >On Sat, 5 Jul 2003, D. Smart wrote: > > > >>*stunned look* >> >>Huh?!? D&D 3E was inspired by RQ? Has my dream come true? >> >>Time for me to really look over D&D 3E! >> >> > >Inspired, perhaps, but d20/D&D3E really takes its system from Ars Magica >(Tweet), Talislanta (Tweet), and Rolemaster (Cook). > > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From gerall at chromebob.com Sun Jul 6 22:30:44 2003 From: gerall at chromebob.com (Gerall Kahla) Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2003 07:30:44 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] adapting d20 stuff to RQ/BRP -- In-Reply-To: <3F07A614.1B294B54@concentric.net> References: <3F0659AE.5060607@chromebob.com> <3F07A614.1B294B54@concentric.net> Message-ID: <3F081674.9000106@chromebob.com> [lots-o-snippin] >>Right now, I'm still fleshing out my psionics system (which >>is keeping me from complete d20 translation mode). My >>Players are running Githyanki "Illithid Hunters", so my >>efforts are focused in that direction. > > Ooooh, very cool! Illithids and Githyanki are actually the two D&D races > highest on my list of desired BRP conversions. > > And handling Psionics has been my major stumbling block so far as well, > how's that coming along? Both gith and illithid are in my bestiary. I have a system for psionics in BRP/RQ on my site as well. My psi system is a serious hack on the Superworld premise for powers. Essentially, a character with a psi Talent gets to roll an attribute for that Talent. That's the strength of that ability for that character. for example, a Telekinesis of 15 would be effectively STR 15 for handling objects, etc... Then characters develop unique skills for each Talent. For a Telekinesis-enabled character, there are a number of 'stock' skills they get at base for having the Talent. Shove and Lift at 15% + knowledge bonus. Then, if they can find a teacher (or make some serious INT rolls) they can develop other, unique skills for the Talent. Like TKParry or Invisible Hands... To keep there from being about 100 rolls of the dice per action, I've ruled that psionics just work without the target being able to resist unless it's stated in the skill's write up. It's working out well. My Players are very happy, my Illithids are really mean, and all is right with the world! [snip] > I've seen Airships myself, also very cool. Are you planning to try to > match them to the BRP ship rules (a la RQ-Vikings or Stormbringer/Elric) > in some fashion? I don't have access to Vikings, but doesn't the RQ3 rulebook have some ship rules? I'll take a look and see... Happy gaming -- -- Gerall Kahla, he who codes From soltakss at yahoo.com Sun Jul 6 23:17:05 2003 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (=?iso-8859-1?q?Simon=20Phipp?=) Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 14:17:05 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Rune Power In-Reply-To: <20030705103403.02B4C4C4AA@thinbits.com> Message-ID: <20030706131705.54797.qmail@web9606.mail.yahoo.com> Ashley Munday: > All this talk of Divine Intervention and what it can do has made me wonder > if anyone uses the two RuneMagic varients proposed in (IIRC) TotRM 12? Not in my games. They are far, far too powerful for anyone with more than, say, 30 points of Rune Magic. Certainly, with more than 100 points of Rune Magic it is unusable. (Now don't anyone say that it is my fault for having PCs in the game with such levels - a rule is a rule is a rule and should work equally well with 10 points of Rune Magic as 100 points of Rune Magic). For initiates, we sometimes gave reusable magic as a reward for a successful HeroQuest or as a gift from a god. In those cases, we used the normal rules for repraying - reusable magic is reusable magic, whether owned by an initiate, acolyte, priest or avatar. Otherwise we played that initiates lost their magic when cast. This wasn't really a problem as our players had the view that it was better to lose the spell and live than hold on to it and die. Simon ________________________________________________________________________ Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo! Messenger http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/ From soltakss at yahoo.com Sun Jul 6 23:29:22 2003 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (=?iso-8859-1?q?Simon=20Phipp?=) Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 14:29:22 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] adapting d20 stuff to RQ/BRP -- In-Reply-To: <20030706125603.84D574C4AC@thinbits.com> Message-ID: <20030706132922.55423.qmail@web9606.mail.yahoo.com> Gerall Kahla: > Leon Kirshtein wrote: > [snip] > > I found it to be very interesting. My only comment is > > that you need to re-figure the species max scores for > > your creatures. > > > > A species maximum is calculated by adding the min > > score to the max score therefore 3d6 = 3 + 18 = 21. > > You can also think of it as double the average score. > > I have been using the formula of (max roll + number of dice) > = species max. For instances where a species gets to roll > 2d6+6, the +6 counts as a 'die', so 2d6+6 would get a 18+3 = > 21 species max for this stat. > > > In cases where additions are made to the dice like > > 2d6+6 you must take this into account. 2d6+6 = 8 + 18 > > = 26 > > > > 2d6+3 = 20 > > 2d6+6 = 26 > > 3d6+3 = 27 > > 3d6+6 = 33 > > Have I been doing this wrong all this time? Wow -- I'll > have to re-read my RQ3 rulebook about species max scores... > Fortunately, it's not too hard to edit a webpage after the > fact. Those are the RQ2 species max rules. They were a bit hard to work out where small additions were used - 2D6 + 1 gives 15, because the 1 is not included as a die, but 2D6 + 3 gives 18, becuase 3 is big enough to count. The RQ3 way is much better, as it is consistently maximum rollable + minimum rollable. Simon ________________________________________________________________________ Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo! Messenger http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/ From gerall at chromebob.com Sun Jul 6 23:32:56 2003 From: gerall at chromebob.com (Gerall Kahla) Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2003 08:32:56 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] adapting d20 stuff to RQ/BRP -- In-Reply-To: <20030706132922.55423.qmail@web9606.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20030706132922.55423.qmail@web9606.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <3F082508.2090707@chromebob.com> Simon Phipp wrote: [snippage] > Those are the RQ2 species max rules. They were a bit hard to work out where > small additions were used - 2D6 + 1 gives 15, because the 1 is not included > as a die, but 2D6 + 3 gives 18, becuase 3 is big enough to count. The RQ3 way > is much better, as it is consistently maximum rollable + minimum rollable. That explains it! Thanks for the heads up. I learned the system in RQ2. I'll take a look at the species max scores today and get them lined up with RQ3. It does make things like creatures who get 2d6+6 POW better priests, but that's alright with me, and my Players might like it as well. Pax -- -- Gerall Kahla, he who codes From leonbk at yahoo.com Mon Jul 7 01:04:42 2003 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 08:04:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Rune Power In-Reply-To: <20030706131705.54797.qmail@web9606.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20030706150442.22370.qmail@web41103.mail.yahoo.com> --- Simon Phipp wrote: > Ashley Munday: > > All this talk of Divine Intervention and what it > can do has made me wonder > > if anyone uses the two RuneMagic varients proposed > in (IIRC) TotRM 12? > > Not in my games. They are far, far too powerful for > anyone with more than, > say, 30 points of Rune Magic. Certainly, with more > than 100 points of Rune I agree with Simon on this. The other problem is that the progression from initiate to priest is less gradual. Then I tried something like this, I had a newly created priest with 33 pts of now re-usable Rune magic at one time. A system, such as these, also remove the constrants on the NPCs to use their Rune magic against the party, so in the effect you are just increasing the power level of the game. I prefer Rune magic as it was setup in RQ3. ===== Leon Kirshtein www.godlearner.d2g.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com From aescleal at btinternet.com Mon Jul 7 01:06:38 2003 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (aescleal at btinternet.com) Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 16:06:38 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Rune Power Message-ID: <2612603.1057503998345.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> "They are far, far too powerful for anyone with more than, say, 30 points of Rune Magic" Not really a problem in most games that I've been involved with (best Priest character in my long standing game had 20 points of Runemagic). Anyway, I'm curious as to how it's unusable? Strikes me that the opposite applies - the players and Ref have less bookeeping to do. Cheers, Ash > from: =?iso-8859-1?q?Simon=20Phipp?= > date: Sun, 06 Jul 2003 14:17:05 > to: rq-rules at crashbox.com > subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Re: Rune Power > > Ashley Munday: > > All this talk of Divine Intervention and what it can do has made me wonder > > if anyone uses the two RuneMagic varients proposed in (IIRC) TotRM 12? > > Not in my games. They are far, far too powerful for anyone with more than, > say, 30 points of Rune Magic. Certainly, with more than 100 points of Rune > Magic it is unusable. (Now don't anyone say that it is my fault for having > PCs in the game with such levels - a rule is a rule is a rule and should work > equally well with 10 points of Rune Magic as 100 points of Rune Magic). > > For initiates, we sometimes gave reusable magic as a reward for a successful > HeroQuest or as a gift from a god. In those cases, we used the normal rules > for repraying - reusable magic is reusable magic, whether owned by an > initiate, acolyte, priest or avatar. Otherwise we played that initiates lost > their magic when cast. This wasn't really a problem as our players had the > view that it was better to lose the spell and live than hold on to it and > die. > > Simon > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo! > Messenger http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/ > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From aescleal at btinternet.com Mon Jul 7 01:14:07 2003 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (aescleal at btinternet.com) Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 16:14:07 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Rune Power Message-ID: <7115296.1057504447246.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> "Then I tried something like this, I had a newly created priest with 33 pts of now re-usable Rune magic at one time." I've had someone with 15 points and that was a bit of a shock - suddenly going from never having used divine magic to "whoo hoo, lob it about lads!!" I suppose I'm really after something that does away with Priests as something extra magically. "A system, such as these, also remove the constrants on the NPCs to use their Rune magic against the party, so in the effect you are just increasing the power level of the game." I'd have thought it'd do the opposite - you can give the adventurers something interesting to face with less divine magic behind them - you're adding to the flexibility of what the NPC can do, not their overall power level. Cheers, Ash > from: Leon Kirshtein > date: Sun, 06 Jul 2003 16:04:42 > to: rq-rules at crashbox.com > subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Re: Rune Power > > --- Simon Phipp wrote: > > Ashley Munday: > > > All this talk of Divine Intervention and what it > > can do has made me wonder > > > if anyone uses the two RuneMagic varients proposed > > in (IIRC) TotRM 12? > > > > Not in my games. They are far, far too powerful for > > anyone with more than, > > say, 30 points of Rune Magic. Certainly, with more > > than 100 points of Rune > > > I agree with Simon on this. The other problem is that > the progression from initiate to priest is less > gradual. > > Then I tried something like this, I had a newly > created priest with 33 pts of now re-usable Rune magic > at one time. > > A system, such as these, also remove the constrants on > the NPCs to use their Rune magic against the party, so > in the effect you are just increasing the power level > of the game. I prefer Rune magic as it was setup in > RQ3. > > ===== > Leon Kirshtein > www.godlearner.d2g.com > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! > http://sbc.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From leonbk at yahoo.com Mon Jul 7 02:12:09 2003 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 09:12:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Rune Power In-Reply-To: <7115296.1057504447246.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <20030706161209.56394.qmail@web41107.mail.yahoo.com> --- aescleal at btinternet.com wrote: > "Then I tried something like this, I had a newly > created priest with 33 pts of now re-usable Rune > magic at one time." > > I've had someone with 15 points and that was a bit > of a shock - suddenly going from never having used > divine magic to "whoo hoo, lob it about lads!!" As rules are stated in RQ3, a character needs 10 pts of Divine magic to becoma a priest (in most cults). Before he becomes a priest most characters, in game I have played will use about 2 points before they get to that level, so I do not see a "fast to feast" problem. In addition (as a house rule) we mandate that certain spells must be taken by every priest (things like Worship, Initate, Spell Teach). These spells help apriest furfill his cultural obligations, but are of limited use in combat. So a newly promoted priest will, on the avarage, have about 4 to 5 points of game useful spells. > I suppose I'm really after something that does away > with Priests as something extra magically. Why? > > "A system, such as these, also remove the constrants > on the NPCs to use their Rune magic against the > party, so in the effect you are just increasing the > power level of the game." > > I'd have thought it'd do the opposite - you can give > the adventurers something interesting to face with > less divine magic behind them - you're adding to the > flexibility of what the NPC can do, not their > overall power level. They already have that ability, you are just increasing the power level at an earlier stage. ===== Leon Kirshtein www.godlearner.d2g.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com From aescleal at btinternet.com Mon Jul 7 04:27:01 2003 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (aescleal at btinternet.com) Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 19:27:01 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Rune Power Message-ID: <3667225.1057516021738.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> "In addition (as a house rule) we mandate that certain spells must be taken by every priest (things like Worship, Initate, Spell Teach). These spells help apriest furfill his cultural obligations, but are of limited use in combat. So a newly promoted priest will, on the avarage, have about 4 to 5 points of game useful spells." That's assuming that newly promoted priests automatically qualify after only having 10 points of reusable magic. In my experience they don't. About the only adventurers I've seen use divine magic magic have either been so far up shit creek it's the only way out or had a lot easier power gain rolls. Me: I suppose I'm really after something that does away with Priests as something extra magically. Leon: Why? Many reasons but it mainly boils down to one: They're a game construct that reminds me rather frighteningly of a character class (or should I say "prestige class" for the d20 cogniscenti?). I don't mind there being a way of measuring religious devotion - and that should relate to magical powers granted by a deity - but I do feel that it should be independent of political and social status. "They already have that ability, you are just increasing the power level at an earlier stage." I don't really get this so I can't really comment back. Maybe I will when I've used the system for a while. As far as I can tell, in an RPG it's the GM that sets the power level, so instead of Ugnaz the Uzdo Shaman having Reflection 3, Shield 4 and Blindness 2 he has a Runepower of 6 - less oomph but overall works about the same. Cheers, Ash From aragan at ucla.edu Mon Jul 7 04:39:31 2003 From: aragan at ucla.edu (Anthony Ragan) Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2003 11:39:31 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Chaosium's future BRP stuff -- In-Reply-To: References: <3F079BBE.3050109@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <20030706113233.41A0.ARAGAN@ucla.edu> While scanning the heavens for a sign, wrote on Sat, 5 Jul 2003 21:39:04 -0700 (PDT): > Inspired, perhaps, but d20/D&D3E really takes its system from Ars Magica > (Tweet), Talislanta (Tweet), and Rolemaster (Cook). I agree. The derivation is pretty clear once you take a moment to think about it. ************** --Anthony Ragan aragan at ucla.edu "I think that the film 'Clueless' was very deep. I think it was deep in the way that it was very light. I think lightness has to come from a very deep place if it's true lightness." --Alicia Silverstone From leonbk at yahoo.com Mon Jul 7 05:21:04 2003 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 12:21:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Rune Power In-Reply-To: <3667225.1057516021738.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <20030706192104.78931.qmail@web41107.mail.yahoo.com> --- aescleal at btinternet.com wrote: > That's assuming that newly promoted priests > automatically qualify after only having 10 points of > reusable magic. In most cases they will. The rule is 5 cult skills at 50% and 10pt divine magic. Getting the skills is easy the 10pt of divine is a bit more complex. > In my experience they don't. Why is that? Do you have additial qulifications for them? > About > the only adventurers I've seen use divine magic > magic have either been so far up shit creek it's the > only way out or had a lot easier power gain rolls. And as an initiate that is about right. The two theories I see the players use are: 1. Get the useful spells and pray you do not need to use them before you become a priest (or acolyte) or 2. Get the less useful spells, so you are not tempted to use them. > Me: I suppose I'm really after something that does > away with Priests as something extra magically. > > Leon: Why? > > Many reasons but it mainly boils down to one: > They're a game construct that reminds me rather > frighteningly of a character class (or should I say > "prestige class" for the d20 cogniscenti?). They are in no way a game construct. Look at the real life. Rabbis, ministers, priests are all around us and rank higher in the relious structures that lay people, who are devoted followers of their faith. The structure of lay member, initiate, acolyte, priest, rune lord, high priest was laid out in RQ long before D&D3 (d20). If anything they were the ones who change their game to a more RQ (BFR) type (See the other threads for more on this.) > I don't > mind there being a way of measuring religious > devotion - and that should relate to magical powers > granted by a deity - but I do feel that it should be > independent of political and social status. Priesthood, and other religious titles, are as much political and social as a measure of magical ability. The two go hand in hand. > "They already have that ability, you are just > increasing the power level at an earlier stage." > > I don't really get this so I can't really comment > back. Maybe I will when I've used the system for a > while. As far as I can tell, in an RPG it's the GM > that sets the power level, so instead of Ugnaz the > Uzdo Shaman having Reflection 3, Shield 4 and > Blindness 2 he has a Runepower of 6 - less oomph but > overall works about the same. I am not saying anything about the Runepower rules, I have different issues with that which I will save for a different thread, it is making initiate divine magic reusable which I dislike and am arguing against here. ===== Leon Kirshtein www.godlearner.d2g.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com From gerall at chromebob.com Mon Jul 7 06:10:19 2003 From: gerall at chromebob.com (Gerall Kahla) Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2003 15:10:19 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Rune Power In-Reply-To: <20030706161209.56394.qmail@web41107.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20030706161209.56394.qmail@web41107.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <3F08822B.1010009@chromebob.com> Leon Kirshtein wrote: [snip] > In addition (as a house rule) we mandate that certain > spells must be taken by every priest (things like > Worship, Initate, Spell Teach). These spells help > apriest furfill his cultural obligations, but are of > limited use in combat. So a newly promoted priest > will, on the avarage, have about 4 to 5 points of game > useful spells. We hold this house rule too. It makes for much more engaging role play, and my group likes that... IMG there are two other contructs we use to keep things flowing smoothly and keep the priests from getting in too much trouble. First is the Power Pool. A magician (shaman, priest or sorcerer) can elect to store POW on the spirit plane instead of gaining it after a successful POW gain roll. On the spirit plane, the magician has access to the POW as MP to fuel spells. The Power Pool regenerates MP independently of the magician. When the priest wants to sacrifice for a high-cost divine spell, the POW can be deducted from the Power Pool instead of his personal POW. Second (for priests only) is RunePower. A priest can sacrifice POW into the RunePower up to 1/3rd their current POW (typically 6 points...). RunePower can be used to cast any divine magic provided by the character's cult. RunePower also must be recovered by prayer, like a divine spell. The Power Pool comes from my experiences with RQ2 shamen, and it works really well with sorcerers and priests in RQ3. The premise for setting it up is bound up in the apprenticeship / initiation of the magician. The RunePower Pool was directly inspired by the TotRM article. Experience led me to limit the point total. Priests IMG can sacrifice for RunePower, or specific spells as normal. Together they make for flexible, yet predictable power progression. -- Gerall Kahla, he who codes From leonbk at yahoo.com Mon Jul 7 07:04:22 2003 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 14:04:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Rune Power In-Reply-To: <3F08822B.1010009@chromebob.com> Message-ID: <20030706210422.90830.qmail@web41107.mail.yahoo.com> --- Gerall Kahla wrote: > IMG there are two other contructs we use to keep > things > flowing smoothly and keep the priests from getting > in too much trouble. > > First is the Power Pool. A magician (shaman, priest > or > sorcerer) can elect to store POW on the spirit plane > instead > of gaining it after a successful POW gain roll. On > the > spirit plane, the magician has access to the POW as > MP to > fuel spells. The Power Pool regenerates MP > independently of > the magician. When the priest wants to sacrifice > for a > high-cost divine spell, the POW can be deducted from > the > Power Pool instead of his personal POW. The only one I see who needs something like this are the shamans and only at the time they make a fetch that is why I made the spell, with help of others on this list, called Imbue Shadow. For priests and sorcerers this is not as critical and makes them more powerful than needs be, IMO. > Second (for priests only) is RunePower. A priest > can > sacrifice POW into the RunePower up to 1/3rd their > current > POW (typically 6 points...). RunePower can be used > to cast > any divine magic provided by the character's cult. > RunePower also must be recovered by prayer, like a > divine spell. I think this is too powerful. There is no reason for a priest to sacrifice his power in any other way and opens your game to unbalanced effects like massive amounts of Shield, Lightning, or many uses of Sever Spirit, Ressurect, Heal BOdy and other powerful Rune spells. This is my main objection to any Power pool schemes for Rune spells. > Together they make for flexible, yet predictable > power progression. I just do not see it as gradual power progression. IMO, it achives the opposite and leads to power gaming. I prefer a game there not all cult spells are availble at every shrine and temple and one must at times travel to find certain magics as well as perfore quests in order to be allowed to sacrifice for certain powerful spells. In my game for example a Humakti must have either done something special or is about to undertake a special mission before he is allowed to sacrifice for a Sever Spirit. ===== Leon Kirshtein www.godlearner.d2g.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com From soltakss at yahoo.com Mon Jul 7 08:49:30 2003 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (=?iso-8859-1?q?Simon=20Phipp?=) Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 23:49:30 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Rune Power In-Reply-To: <20030706211803.653724C4AB@thinbits.com> Message-ID: <20030706224930.64619.qmail@web9608.mail.yahoo.com> Ashley: Me: > "They are far, far too powerful for anyone with more than, > say, 30 points of Rune Magic" > > Not really a problem in most games that I've been involved with (best > Priest character in my long standing game had 20 points of Runemagic). > Anyway, I'm curious as to how it's unusable? Strikes me that the opposite > applies - the players and Ref have less bookeeping to do. The bookkeeping side of things is easier, but how difficult is it to wipe through a spell with a marker pen? We never had a problem with bookkeeping in RQ2/3. The problem with the system is that high level characters can cast unreasonably high spells that they would normally never sacrifice for or use. Like Leon, we used the house rule that Priests had to have Worship (Deity), Spell Teaching and Divination before they could become priests, so they had to have 10 points of Divine Magic, of which at least 3 were essentially wasted. Also, priests tended to sacrifice for different spells to be used in different situations, so a Zorak Zorani would get Spell Teaching, Worship Zorak Zoran, Divination, Sanctify, Shield 4, Crush 4, Berserker, Heal Wound, Warding 4, Fear 3, a total of 22 (I hope). This actually counts as a fairly weak Rune Priest, compared with the priests in Runemasters, say. Now, under the Runepower rules, he has 22 points of Divine Magic to play with and can cast Crush 11 and have 11 points of magic to play with. Crush 11 on a maul would do something like 2D8 + 2D6 + 11D4 + 4 (for Bludgeon 4), with an average damage of 44.5 on a normal hit, enough to pound through most normal opponents, even Rune Lords. Now imagine someone twice as powerful who casts Crush 22, doing nearly 70 points of damage. Now imagine these being NPCs who are only trying to protect their temple. They will think nothing about conserving their spells as they are in a backs-to-the-wall situation and will blow everything against the attackers. So, you have a situation where every acolyte uses all Runepower in Crush and hopes for an easy kill. This is where it becomes unbalanced. In the above example. the NPC in RQ3 would only be able to have Crush 4, the NPC using Runepower would use Crush 11 with some spells being held back, or Crush 22 for an all-out attack. The difference in power level is so great as to be unworkable, in my opinion. > "Then I tried something like this, I had a newly created priest with 33 pts > of now re-usable Rune magic at one time." > > I've had someone with 15 points and that was a bit of a shock - suddenly > going from never having used divine magic to "whoo hoo, lob it about > lads!!" That's the fun of having a Priest with that many points of Rune Magic - they can lob it about to some extent. Then when it's all gone, the NPCs can start lobbing it about as well :-) > I suppose I'm really after something that does away with Priests as > something extra magically. It all depends what you see priests as. Are they purely a status or title or are they something magical. If you have the idea of Rune Level which has reusable Rune Magic, maybe DI support, maybe allied spirits and also have the Cult Title/Job of Acolyte, Priest, Rune Lord, Chief Priest, High Priest then that would probably work. You could perhaps extend it down to initiates, so that everyone gets reusable magic, similar to an Eurmal cult, but make it so that initiates take 3 days/point to repray, acolytes 2 days and Rune Levels 1 day, or whatever. I can see that such a system could work, but I do wonder what is the point? What advantages does it give over the normal system? > "A system, such as these, also remove the constrants on the NPCs to use > their Rune magic against the party, so in the effect you are just > increasing the power level of the game." > > I'd have thought it'd do the opposite - you can give the adventurers > something interesting to face with less divine magic behind them - you're > adding to the flexibility of what the NPC can do, not their overall power > level. But, when power levels creep up, as they are bound to do if people are allowed to make POW gain rolls, then it becomes unplayable as above. > That's assuming that newly promoted priests automatically qualify after > only having 10 points of reusable magic. In my experience they don't. About > the only adventurers I've seen use divine magic magic have either been so > far up shit creek it's the only way out or had a lot easier power gain > rolls. When I played an initiate character, in RQ2, you had to have 18 POW and have other literacy/skill requirements to become a priest. That was fairly dificult to achieve and maintain. If you were lucky, you rolled up on a high POW and made your POW gain roll to take you over 18 POW. When a character reached 18 POW, he generally sacrificed any points over 18 POW as one-use Rune Magic, because there was not real point in keeping POW above 18. For a human, or other normal species, the species max was 21, so at 18 POW you had a 15% chance of getting a POW gain roll. This was fairly low, so was not made very often. We played that a Priest had to have Divination (no Spell Teaching or Worship in those days), so one of the spells had to be Divination. This was fairly tricky to achieve. In RQ3, it is a lot easier. There is no POW requirement to be a priest, so a character could sit on 14 POW, say, with a 35% POW gain roll, and sacrifice any POW above that for Rune Magic. Assuming you get a POW gain roll each session, not unreasonable, and make a POW gain roll once in three sessions, then you get an average POW gain of 1 POW per session. So, after 10 sessions of sacrificing for Rune Magic you have your 10 points. Even if you sacrifice for Spell Teaching (which I would not allow for initiates - it takes control away from the Priests) and other non-productive spells, you still make the grade fairly quickly. Also, a character with more than 10 points of Rune Magic is more likely to use it in less extreme situations, since he will still qualify as a Priest if he uses a couple of points. If he sacrifices for those spells that he finds useful then he can up his success/survival rate fairly easily. In either case, when the approriate level is reached (POW 18, 10 points of divine magic) the initiate can sacrifice for and use divine magic with impunity. When he finally becomes a priest, the spells become reusable and way-hay! Leon Kirshtein: > --- aescleal at btinternet.com wrote: > > That's assuming that newly promoted priests > > automatically qualify after only having 10 points of > > reusable magic. > > In most cases they will. The rule is 5 cult skills at > 50% and 10pt divine magic. Getting the skills is easy > the 10pt of divine is a bit more complex. In my experience, the 10 points of Divine Magic is easier than the 50% in Speak Languages and other skills. Generally, when I look at a rule, I have to think about several things: 1. What happens at the lowest level? 2. What happens at the highest level? 3. What happens in between? 4. How can I abuse this rule? (If I can abuse it then my players would have abused it ten times over) 5. How does it affect game balance? If a rule is good then it works at low and high levels equally, it does not completely unbalance the game and is not easily abusable. I looked at this for the Runepower rules and decided that they broke 2, 4 and 5. I showed them to my players and they said the same. In fact, they didn't want the rules because they made NPCs too powerful. There is also the fact that I play a very high level campaign that many people think of as gross, inflated, super-RQ for Power Gamers and people who have no place playing RQ. If I think a rule is too powerful, what does that mean for the rule? Maybe it means I am wrong, maybe that my ego is far too big, but maybe that if even Simon thinks it is too powerful, then maybe it is worth having another look at it. See Y'all Simon (Who has nothing better to do than spend an hour or two answering emails on RQ-Rules :-( ) ________________________________________________________________________ Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo! Messenger http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/ From leonbk at yahoo.com Mon Jul 7 10:12:27 2003 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 17:12:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Rune Power In-Reply-To: <20030706224930.64619.qmail@web9608.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20030707001227.15754.qmail@web41108.mail.yahoo.com> --- Simon Phipp wrote: > > "Then I tried something like this, I had a newly > created priest with 33 pts > > of now re-usable Rune magic at one time." > > That's the fun of having a Priest with that many > points of Rune Magic - they > can lob it about to some extent. Then when it's all > gone, the NPCs can start lobbing it about as well :-) I do not have problem with characters having that much Rune magic. My problem is when they go to that level all of a sudden, which happens if initiates magic is in effect re-usable, even if they re-pray for it only once a year. Leon Kirshtein: >>--- aescleal at btinternet.com wrote: >>> That's assuming that newly promoted priests >>> automatically qualify after only having 10 points of >>> reusable magic. > >> In most cases they will. The rule is 5 cult skills at >> 50% and 10pt divine magic. Getting the skills is easy >> the 10pt of divine is a bit more complex. > In my experience, the 10 points of Divine Magic is easier than the 50% > in Speak Languages and other skills. Nope, just the opposite in my case. You can train the skills to 50% quickly, even the none checkable ones. The 10pt of Rune magic is bit different. There are a whole bunch of ways to lose power on the way to being a priest and a lot of characters find themselves in a situation there they have to start using it. >Generally, when I look at a rule, I have to think about several things: > 1. What happens at the lowest level? > 2. What happens at the highest level? > 3. What happens in between? > 4. How can I abuse this rule? (If I can abuse it then my players >would have abused it ten times over) > 5. How does it affect game balance? >If a rule is good then it works at low and high levels equally, it does >not completely unbalance the game and is not easily abusable. >I looked at this for the Runepower rules and decided that they broke 2, >4 and 5. I showed them to my players and they said the same. In fact, they >didn't want the rules because they made NPCs too powerful. I think it also breaks at 1, since a newly made priest can now cast fairly large Rune spells and have all of the cult spells now available for his use. >There is also the fact that I play a very high level campaign that many >people think of as gross, inflated, super-RQ for Power Gamers and >people who have no place playing RQ. If I think a rule is too powerful, what does >that mean for the rule? Maybe it means I am wrong, maybe that my ego is far >too big, but maybe that if even Simon thinks it is too powerful, then maybe >it is worth having another look at it. Having played in a good number of fairly high powered RQ games myself (I once saw a character do 137 pts of damage wit a Troll Maul!) and have characters with well over 70 pts of Rune magic, I fully agree with you assessment. > Simon (Who has nothing better to do than spend an hour or two answering emails on RQ-Rules :-( ) It could be worse. It could for example be .... Hmmm, maybe you are right it is rather pitiful. ===== Leon Kirshtein www.godlearner.d2g.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com From gerall at chromebob.com Mon Jul 7 11:26:53 2003 From: gerall at chromebob.com (Gerall Kahla) Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2003 20:26:53 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Rune Power In-Reply-To: <20030706210422.90830.qmail@web41107.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20030706210422.90830.qmail@web41107.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <3F08CC5D.7090704@chromebob.com> Leon Kirshtein wrote: [snip] >> First is the Power Pool. [snip] > The only one I see who needs something like this are the > shamans and only at the time they make a fetch that is > why I made the spell, with help of others on this list, > called Imbue Shadow. > > For priests and sorcerers this is not as critical and > makes them more powerful than needs be, IMO. How? What can a priest or sorcerer do with this POW other than slowly accumulate enough for a good enchantment or serious divine magic spell? It does not aid them in resisting spells or spirits. It also, IMG, doesn't last all that long... I've only rarely seen Power Pools larger than 10 points because it gets spent on Armoring Enchantments and the like. >> Second (for priests only) is RunePower. A priest can >> sacrifice POW into the RunePower up to 1/3rd their >> current POW (typically 6 points...). RunePower can be >> used to cast any divine magic provided by the >> character's cult. RunePower also must be recovered by >> prayer, like a divine spell. > > I think this is too powerful. There is no reason for a > priest to sacrifice his power in any other way and opens > your game to unbalanced effects like massive amounts of > Shield, Lightning, or many uses of Sever Spirit, > Ressurect, Heal BOdy and other powerful Rune spells. > This is my main objection to any Power pool schemes for > Rune spells. How long does it take an average priest to accumulate 6 points of POW in your game? In mine, it's something like 1 real year. If your group is gathering POW more rapidly, I could see it getting out of hand. I'll agree with your stance on Initiates not needing access to reusable divine magic. [snip] > I just do not see it as gradual power progression. IMO, > it achives the opposite and leads to power gaming. I > prefer a game there not all cult spells are availble at > every shrine and temple and one must at times travel to > find certain magics as well as perfore quests in order to > be allowed to sacrifice for certain powerful spells. > > In my game for example a Humakti must have either done > something special or is about to undertake a special > mission before he is allowed to sacrifice for a Sever > Spirit. I'm beginning to understand your comments! To be fair, I haven't been involved with too many power gamers in my group. They tend to get bored with the level of role play my core group likes and wander off to other games... For what it's worth, there are spells that I do not allow RunePower to be spent on, like Sever Spirit and Resurrection. There are defintely spells on the lists that aren't normally available! The most outlandish spell thrown as RunePower IMG has been a Reflection 5. (A priest of Yelmalio-equivalent diety wandering into a horde of D&D style dark elves.) Most of the time generic divine magic is what my Players use RunePower for, due to it's stackability. -- Gerall Kahla, he who codes From leonbk at yahoo.com Mon Jul 7 13:32:38 2003 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 20:32:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Rune Power In-Reply-To: <3F08CC5D.7090704@chromebob.com> Message-ID: <20030707033238.73782.qmail@web41113.mail.yahoo.com> --- Gerall Kahla wrote: > Leon Kirshtein wrote: > [snip] > >> First is the Power Pool. > [snip] > > The only one I see who needs something like this > > are the shamans and only at the time they make a > > fetch that is > > why I made the spell, with help of others on this > > list, called Imbue Shadow. > > > > For priests and sorcerers this is not as critical > > and makes them more powerful than needs be, IMO. > > How? What can a priest or sorcerer do with this POW > other than slowly accumulate enough for a good > enchantment or serious divine magic spell? It does > not aid them in resisting spells or spirits. Priest constantly sacrifice for Rune spells, thus becoming more powerful. It is fairly rare occurrence for a Rune spell to be more than 3 pts. Any time a priest is making an enchantment requiring more than, lets say 5 pts of power, it is done by several priests whom share in the power loss. The same can be said of sorcerers. It is very common, in literature, to see a group of priests or sorcerers collaborating on a project to create something more powerful than the usual. Then an assistant shaman is making a fetch on the other hand he does not have the luxury of such aid and, in my experience starts out with a power of about 10 while the fetch has a power of 6. This makes a starting shaman very weak and vulnerable. > It also, IMG, doesn't last all > that long... I've only rarely seen Power Pools > larger than > 10 points because it gets spent on Armoring > Enchantments and the like. You are just making it easy(er) for your characters to make more powerful enchantments. It maybe fine for your style of play, but I prefer my players making small things and finding or making something more powerful more important and valuable. > How long does it take an average priest to > accumulate 6 > points of POW in your game? In mine, it's something > like 1 real year. It is not unusual for players to get two power gain rolls after each adventure. Therefore, on the average 1pt of power gained after each session. I have seen characters gain as much as 5pt after some lucky rolling. I allow power gain rolls,for a different type of activity; for overcoming someone power with a spell; for overcoming someones power in spirit combat; attending high holy day prays, or leading the worship ceremony;and for attuning a crystal. Depending on the cult it takes about 5 to 8 sessions for a character to become a priest or acolyte and thats assuming they use a couple of points along the way. > They tend to get bored with the level of > role play > my core group likes and wander off to other games... Then things start getting boring I send my players on quests which take them to other worlds. I particularly like sending then to either Young Kingdoms, Warhammer world, or Earth History. If they succeed it is interesting to see what kind of things they manage to pickup along the way and then use in their native (my version of Glorantha) world. > The most outlandish spell thrown > as RunePower IMG has been a Reflection 5. (A priest > of > Yelmalio-equivalent diety wandering into a horde of > D&D style dark elves.) Reflection as written is the least of a GMs worry. It only works if the original spell fails to overcome in the first place. Reflection is not a defensive spell by any means unless you fiddle with its description. I am more concerned with things like Slash 5, or Warding 5, or Mindlink 5, or Shield 5, or (oh my god!) Hallucinate 5 (too gross to even think about). > Most of the time generic divine magic is what my > Players use RunePower for, due to it's stack ability. Common Rune magic in large amounts is extremely effective and is nothing to sneeze at. ===== Leon Kirshtein www.godlearner.d2g.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com From leonbk at yahoo.com Mon Jul 7 13:41:11 2003 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 20:41:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Caos/evil oriented adventurers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20030707034111.5378.qmail@web41101.mail.yahoo.com> I am enjoying the current level of discussion on this list. So in a blatant attempt to maintain it, here is another question: How many of you have, or had a campaign based on chaos/evil oriented adventures. And, what was the makeup/cult affiliations of the party? ===== Leon Kirshtein www.godlearner.d2g.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com From steve at perrinworlds.com Mon Jul 7 18:16:25 2003 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Steve Perrin) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 01:16:25 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Rune Power References: <20030706224930.64619.qmail@web9608.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <01a701c34460$0fe411a0$f4407442@wizard> I have to say that I don't use Rune Power the way I am seeing it done here. My priests and Acolytes still have to sacrifice for specific spells. However, the points they sacrifice go into a pool, so they can have multiple uses of one of the spells at the cost of not being able to use another because the pool is dried up (has to be re-prayed for). So someone has sacrificed 3 POW points for various bookeeping spells, then a Shield 2, a Sever Spirit, a Resurrection, and a dispel 3. That's a total of 14 Divine Pool points. If he gets into a long term battle, he can put all 14 into Shield 2 and Sever Spirit. He can't use a cult spell he has not sacrificed for. He cannot use Shield 14 just because he knows Shield 2. Steve Perrin, keeping some kind of a lid on things... www.perrinworlds.com/SPQR.html ----- Original Message ----- From: "Simon Phipp" To: Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 3:49 PM Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Rune Power > Ashley: > > Me: > > "They are far, far too powerful for anyone with more than, > > say, 30 points of Rune Magic" > > > > Not really a problem in most games that I've been involved with (best > > Priest character in my long standing game had 20 points of Runemagic). > > Anyway, I'm curious as to how it's unusable? Strikes me that the opposite > > applies - the players and Ref have less bookeeping to do. > > The bookkeeping side of things is easier, but how difficult is it to wipe > through a spell with a marker pen? We never had a problem with bookkeeping in > RQ2/3. > > The problem with the system is that high level characters can cast > unreasonably high spells that they would normally never sacrifice for or use. > Like Leon, we used the house rule that Priests had to have Worship (Deity), > Spell Teaching and Divination before they could become priests, so they had > to have 10 points of Divine Magic, of which at least 3 were essentially > wasted. Also, priests tended to sacrifice for different spells to be used in > different situations, so a Zorak Zorani would get Spell Teaching, Worship > Zorak Zoran, Divination, Sanctify, Shield 4, Crush 4, Berserker, Heal Wound, > Warding 4, Fear 3, a total of 22 (I hope). This actually counts as a fairly > weak Rune Priest, compared with the priests in Runemasters, say. Now, under > the Runepower rules, he has 22 points of Divine Magic to play with and can > cast Crush 11 and have 11 points of magic to play with. Crush 11 on a maul > would do something like 2D8 + 2D6 + 11D4 + 4 (for Bludgeon 4), with an > average damage of 44.5 on a normal hit, enough to pound through most normal > opponents, even Rune Lords. Now imagine someone twice as powerful who casts > Crush 22, doing nearly 70 points of damage. Now imagine these being NPCs who > are only trying to protect their temple. They will think nothing about > conserving their spells as they are in a backs-to-the-wall situation and will > blow everything against the attackers. So, you have a situation where every > acolyte uses all Runepower in Crush and hopes for an easy kill. This is where > it becomes unbalanced. > > In the above example. the NPC in RQ3 would only be able to have Crush 4, the > NPC using Runepower would use Crush 11 with some spells being held back, or > Crush 22 for an all-out attack. The difference in power level is so great as > to be unworkable, in my opinion. > > > "Then I tried something like this, I had a newly created priest with 33 pts > > of now re-usable Rune magic at one time." > > > > I've had someone with 15 points and that was a bit of a shock - suddenly > > going from never having used divine magic to "whoo hoo, lob it about > > lads!!" > > That's the fun of having a Priest with that many points of Rune Magic - they > can lob it about to some extent. Then when it's all gone, the NPCs can start > lobbing it about as well :-) > > > I suppose I'm really after something that does away with Priests as > > something extra magically. > > It all depends what you see priests as. Are they purely a status or title or > are they something magical. If you have the idea of Rune Level which has > reusable Rune Magic, maybe DI support, maybe allied spirits and also have the > Cult Title/Job of Acolyte, Priest, Rune Lord, Chief Priest, High Priest then > that would probably work. You could perhaps extend it down to initiates, so > that everyone gets reusable magic, similar to an Eurmal cult, but make it so > that initiates take 3 days/point to repray, acolytes 2 days and Rune Levels 1 > day, or whatever. I can see that such a system could work, but I do wonder > what is the point? What advantages does it give over the normal system? > > > "A system, such as these, also remove the constrants on the NPCs to use > > their Rune magic against the party, so in the effect you are just > > increasing the power level of the game." > > > > I'd have thought it'd do the opposite - you can give the adventurers > > something interesting to face with less divine magic behind them - you're > > adding to the flexibility of what the NPC can do, not their overall power > > level. > > But, when power levels creep up, as they are bound to do if people are > allowed to make POW gain rolls, then it becomes unplayable as above. > > > That's assuming that newly promoted priests automatically qualify after > > only having 10 points of reusable magic. In my experience they don't. About > > the only adventurers I've seen use divine magic magic have either been so > > far up shit creek it's the only way out or had a lot easier power gain > > rolls. > > When I played an initiate character, in RQ2, you had to have 18 POW and have > other literacy/skill requirements to become a priest. That was fairly > dificult to achieve and maintain. If you were lucky, you rolled up on a high > POW and made your POW gain roll to take you over 18 POW. When a character > reached 18 POW, he generally sacrificed any points over 18 POW as one-use > Rune Magic, because there was not real point in keeping POW above 18. For a > human, or other normal species, the species max was 21, so at 18 POW you had > a 15% chance of getting a POW gain roll. This was fairly low, so was not made > very often. We played that a Priest had to have Divination (no Spell Teaching > or Worship in those days), so one of the spells had to be Divination. This > was fairly tricky to achieve. > > In RQ3, it is a lot easier. There is no POW requirement to be a priest, so a > character could sit on 14 POW, say, with a 35% POW gain roll, and sacrifice > any POW above that for Rune Magic. Assuming you get a POW gain roll each > session, not unreasonable, and make a POW gain roll once in three sessions, > then you get an average POW gain of 1 POW per session. So, after 10 sessions > of sacrificing for Rune Magic you have your 10 points. Even if you sacrifice > for Spell Teaching (which I would not allow for initiates - it takes control > away from the Priests) and other non-productive spells, you still make the > grade fairly quickly. Also, a character with more than 10 points of Rune > Magic is more likely to use it in less extreme situations, since he will > still qualify as a Priest if he uses a couple of points. If he sacrifices for > those spells that he finds useful then he can up his success/survival rate > fairly easily. > > In either case, when the approriate level is reached (POW 18, 10 points of > divine magic) the initiate can sacrifice for and use divine magic with > impunity. When he finally becomes a priest, the spells become reusable and > way-hay! > > Leon Kirshtein: > > --- aescleal at btinternet.com wrote: > > > That's assuming that newly promoted priests > > > automatically qualify after only having 10 points of > > > reusable magic. > > > > In most cases they will. The rule is 5 cult skills at > > 50% and 10pt divine magic. Getting the skills is easy > > the 10pt of divine is a bit more complex. > > In my experience, the 10 points of Divine Magic is easier than the 50% in > Speak Languages and other skills. > > Generally, when I look at a rule, I have to think about several things: > 1. What happens at the lowest level? > 2. What happens at the highest level? > 3. What happens in between? > 4. How can I abuse this rule? (If I can abuse it then my players would have > > abused it ten times over) > 5. How does it affect game balance? > > If a rule is good then it works at low and high levels equally, it does not > completely unbalance the game and is not easily abusable. > I looked at this for the Runepower rules and decided that they broke 2, 4 and > 5. I showed them to my players and they said the same. In fact, they didn't > want the rules because they made NPCs too powerful. > > There is also the fact that I play a very high level campaign that many > people think of as gross, inflated, super-RQ for Power Gamers and people who > have no place playing RQ. If I think a rule is too powerful, what does that > mean for the rule? Maybe it means I am wrong, maybe that my ego is far too > big, but maybe that if even Simon thinks it is too powerful, then maybe it is > worth having another look at it. > > See Y'all > > Simon (Who has nothing better to do than spend an hour or two answering > emails on RQ-Rules :-( ) > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo! > Messenger http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/ > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From talmeta at talmeta.net Mon Jul 7 20:02:39 2003 From: talmeta at talmeta.net (Tal Meta) Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 06:02:39 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Chaosium's future BRP stuff -- References: <20037475948.761635@laptop> Message-ID: <3F09453F.1060208@talmeta.net> Rich Allen wrote: > It's been noted many times since 3rd edition was released. I don't > have any references, so treat this as hear-say, but I'm sure I read > that at least two of the authors of D&D 3E mentioned RQ3 as an > inspiration source. After all, WotC is owned by Hasbro, and so is > all of the RQ3 material produced by The Avalon Hill. Nothing wrong > with combining the good parts of other RPGs into D&D, in my opinion; > especially when everything is staying in the family, so to speak. Actually, Peter Adkinson (who was at the time, still waiting for the check from Hasbro to clear (he'd sold WotC the day before)) told me directly that RQ was one of the inspirations for d20. It's probably one of the reasons that I'm actually considering running a d20 game in the near future. -- talmeta at talmeta.net - Heretic, Dilettante, & God-Machine AIM - talmeta ICQ - 12594453 Homepage - hey God, can this world really be as sad as it seems? From gerall at chromebob.com Mon Jul 7 21:56:13 2003 From: gerall at chromebob.com (Gerall Kahla) Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 06:56:13 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Rune Power In-Reply-To: <20030707033238.73782.qmail@web41113.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20030707033238.73782.qmail@web41113.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <3F095FDD.4020702@chromebob.com> Leon Kirshtein wrote: [snip] >>How long does it take an average priest to >>accumulate 6 >>points of POW in your game? In mine, it's something >>like 1 real year. > > > It is not unusual for players to get two power gain > rolls after each adventure. Therefore, on the average > 1pt of power gained after each session. > > I have seen characters gain as much as 5pt after some > lucky rolling. This is *much* faster than IMG... My game world runs in the background while the characters do things like take a week off from adventuring. So, the pressure is on to keep going and stop the Bad Guys(tm) instead of taking a week off for a POW gain roll. If I allowed a shorter duration for making POW gain rolls, they'd be making them after each adventure. No doubt! > I allow power gain rolls,for a different type of > activity; for overcoming someone power with a spell; > for overcoming someones power in spirit combat; > attending high holy day prays, or leading the worship > ceremony;and for attuning a crystal. Sounds close to what I use. How long does a character have to vegitate in meditation to make a POW gain roll? [snip] >>The most outlandish spell thrown >>as RunePower IMG has been a Reflection 5. (A priest >>of >>Yelmalio-equivalent diety wandering into a horde of >>D&D style dark elves.) > > Reflection as written is the least of a GMs worry. It > only works if the original spell fails to overcome in > the first place. Reflection is not a defensive spell > by any means unless you fiddle with its description. He had a personal POW of 20 at the time, so he decided to take his chances. Notably, the Reflection did manage to keep the drow guessing... > I am more concerned with things like Slash 5, or > Warding 5, or Mindlink 5, or Shield 5, or (oh my god!) > Hallucinate 5 (too gross to even think about). What's so bad about a Mindlink 5? Or a Warding 5 for that matter? Mindlinks of that size only allow spell sharing (and most of my group has the same spells in memory anyway -- they're all from the same culture / region), POW sharing, and instant communication (like radios). Warding is specifically defensive, and NPCs get as much as PCs do... I have no Players who have access to the Hallucinate divine spell, but your level of concern is remarkable. I'll look up specifics and see if I agree. Thanks for the ongoing commentary. It's interesting to see how different house rules affect the overall system. -- Gerall Kahla, he who codes From LKirshtein at howost.com Mon Jul 7 22:45:40 2003 From: LKirshtein at howost.com (Kirshtein, Leon) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 08:45:40 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Rune Power Message-ID: <3156D872DCD0D411AF85000102C00AE60E7F3BBD@hosntexch01.howost.strykercorp.com> Leon Kirshtein wrote: It is not unusual for players to get two power gain rolls after each adventure. Therefore, on the average 1pt of power gained after each session. Gerall Kahla wrote: This is *much* faster than IMG... My game world runs in the background while the characters do things like take a week off from adventuring. So, the pressure is on to keep going and stop the Bad Guys(tm) instead of taking a week off for a POW gain roll. I play that a power gain actually happens over about a 3 day period and the character does not need to take that time off. He can continue to adventure while his power is "increasing", no "vegetation" is required. Gerall Kahla wrote: What's so bad about a Mindlink 5? Or a Warding 5 for that matter? Mindlinks of that size only allow spell sharing (and most of my group has the same spells in memory anyway -- they're all from the same culture / region), POW sharing, and instant communication (like radios). Warding is specifically defensive, and NPCs get as much as PCs do... Mindlink is a very useful spell and can boost a characters mp to fairly impressive levels. Just imagine a character Mindlinking with his bound elementals/int spirits or even pack animals. A Mindlink 5 can give a character access to an additional 75 mp in a hurry. There are some things to be careful about, but impressive never the less. Gerall Kahla wrote: I have no Players who have access to the Hallucinate divine spell, but your level of concern is remarkable. I'll look up specifics and see if I agree. This spell deserves a thread of its own. But in general it gives 12pt of Illusionary Rune magic per point of Hallucinate. The catch is what it works only on the caster. Now you must remember what in RQ illusions are real for all intense. At first you may say: "So what, it doesn't really work on anybody but the caster. ", but then you think.... Lets say the caster Hallucinates the sword you are wielding does not exist, that means that weapon can no longer damage him; or lets say he Hallucinates that your armor is not there, so any attack made by him will ignore you physical armor; or the caster Hallucinates doorway to a pocket dimension or what ever. Now combine this spell with Mindlink and you have a whole party being able to do things like this. My point is that this spell is open to abuse and multiple casting increase its level of potential for such abuse. Leon Kirshtein From alan.richards75 at ntlworld.com Tue Jul 8 00:59:24 2003 From: alan.richards75 at ntlworld.com (Alan Richards) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 15:59:24 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Runepower In-Reply-To: <20030707083003.EC9D64C4A9@thinbits.com> Message-ID: <98FB5B34-B08B-11D7-B67E-000A277B64F4@ntlworld.com> There have been some fascinating idea for extreme use of Rune Magic and Runepower posted. I have to say that I have never come across them. But with a healthy does of hindsight that appears to have been pure luck. I don't run a game in Glorantha so Cults are not as all-pervasive as in some others. A possible idea (tweaked from my sorcery rules) is to limit the points which may be put into 1 Rune spell to (Pow-15) with a minimum of 1. Of course those people who love the old system and hate the idea of Runepower might think this is just tinkering with a broken rule. I have to say I disagree, but obviously everyone knows their own group best. I do like the idea of using the old RQII rule for Priests of Pow 18+. I'm amazed I forgot that one and might well reintroduce it. I'm definitely going to swipe the idea that Priests must have Divination, Initiate, Spell Teach, and Worship (Deity) as part of their 10 point quota. In terms of general Power pools. I do it as follows: Initiation (or Apprentice bonding for Shaman and Sorcerers) costs 1 Pow. This opens up the link to the 'other side'. The Apprentice / Initiate now effectively has an empty pot on the Spirit plane. Any additionally gained Pow may be sacrificed to this pot immediately. 'Core' Pow as it were may only be sacrificed with a successful ritual. 1. Shaman Once a Shaman's astral pool is equal to his/her 'core' Pow (s)he has awakened their fetch. Yes this does mean that the Shaman now has a much more powerful fetch. All Perception skills are penalised by (fetch's Pow)% The fetch may be used to bind spirits as usual It adds to Shaman's Pow/MPs for defending against offensive magic. 2. Priests / Cultists The other side pool is their Runepower pool. It has no effect other than as a pool for casting Rune Magic. 3. Sorcerer The Sorcerer's pool is unusable until (s)he binds it to a familiar or Mandala. This can only be done once the pool is equal to the Sorcerer's core Pow. The ritual to do this costs 1 Pow from each pool. (otherwise they would not be equal now would they?) I use the Elric Unknown East rule whereby in fact the Sorcerer has swapped his soul with that of the familiar. Which can lead to all kinds of silly or devastating effects. --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/enriched --- From aescleal at btinternet.com Tue Jul 8 01:00:36 2003 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (aescleal at btinternet.com) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 16:00:36 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Rune Power Message-ID: <3314435.1057590036230.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> A couple of points that might explain where I'm coming from with this, especially the assumptions I've been making: 1) Initiate level adventurers and Rune Lords might get 5 adventures during a year ~ 1 extra POW for someone carting around POW 17. 2) Rune Priests will be lucky to get 1 adventure during the course of a year. They also get 1 free point of Divine Magic each year. (The upshot of this is any adventurer's POW is likely to only increase a point or two each game year. 100 points of Runemagic isn't going to happen - at least not for human adventurers). 3) To become a priest isn't easy - playing strictly by the rules only gives an adventurer with 17 POW a 50/50 chance of managing it in any game year. I've binned that roll and tend to use how well they've played their ambition in the game and what they've done to support their religions. 4) About the only Divine Magic spell that I've heard that might cause problems is Crush - although the number of Zorak Zoran worshippers kicking about is fairly low and the easier availability of things like Shield and Dismiss Magic will probably balance that out. (Kyger Litor's blindness sounds a bit nasty - I'll tell you what happens with that one later...) Things like Halluncinate in conjunction with Mindlink are not going to be that abusive - "Mind Link to a Trickster? No effing way sunshine - the geezer's barmy! I'd prefer to link to the Bat itself!" As to the rules themselves: 1) No such thing as sacrificing (a'la DnD) for uses of a specific spell anymore. All POW sacrificed to a God ends up in Runepower pool that can be used to cast any Divine Magic spell the caster knows. It takes a day and a successful "worship " spell cast to sacrifice 1 POW for 1 runepower. 2) To regain a point of runepower takes a sacrifice of 10 magic points (at 1 mpt/hour) and a successful " Lore/Mythology" roll at a temple. Only one person per 100 worshippers at a temple or shrine may gain or regain Runepower at a temple or shrine at the same time. The clergy get first call on gaining/regaining slots, so most initiates are going to have to pay through the snout (in service, cash or other choirboy-like favours) to get their magic back. 3) Learning a Divine Spell takes 1 week (50 hours) and either instruction from someone that already knows it or a successful " Lore/Mythology" roll. (Another thing might be to allow improvised spell use if the caster can manage a Lore roll - sorry if that's a bit Hero Wars for the assembled masses...) 4) (Dunno about this one...) When calling for Divine Intervention, the appellant looses RunePower before he or she looses personal POW ("Oh Lord perform this miracle for me even though thou thinks less of me afterwards..."). Cheers, Ash From LKirshtein at howost.com Tue Jul 8 01:44:22 2003 From: LKirshtein at howost.com (Kirshtein, Leon) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 11:44:22 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Runepower Message-ID: <3156D872DCD0D411AF85000102C00AE60E7F3BC5@hosntexch01.howost.strykercorp.com> Ash wrote: > A couple of points that might explain where I'm coming from with this, especially the assumptions I've been making: > 1) Initiate level adventurers and Rune Lords might get 5 adventures during a year ~ 1 extra POW for someone carting around POW 17. > 2) Rune Priests will be lucky to get 1 adventure during the course of a year. They also get 1 free point of Divine Magic each year. In general according to the rules initiates donate 10% of their time, acolytes 30%, priests 50%, rune lords 90%. Of course adventures can also occur on "cult time" as well. Therefore I find characters in my world more active during the year. IMG, most players are running around with power of 12 to 15, so they will make their power gain rolls a lot more often, of course they will be affected by enemy magic more often as well. > 3) To become a priest isn't easy - playing strictly by the rules only gives an adventurer with 17 POW a 50/50 chance of managing it in any game year. Depends on how you play the rules. I am assuming you make them roll POW *3 to become a priest? Even in this case becoming an acolyte should be much easier. > Things like Halluncinate in conjunction with Mindlink are not going to be that abusive - "Mind Link to a Trickster? No effing way sunshine - the geezer's barmy! I'd prefer to link to the Bat itself!" You get a party of Lightbringers who discover the possibilities of this spell and you got a handful. No one has done it in my campaigns so far, but I have participated in things like this as a player. > 2) To regain a point of runepower takes a sacrifice of 10 magic points (at 1 mpt/hour) and a successful " Lore/Mythology" roll at a temple. I like this. I think I am going to included in my campaign, but without the rune power and I allow for spells to be re-prayed for in a sanctified area. Add 2pts of Sanctify to what every priest or acolyte's "don't leave home with out it" list. Leon Kirshtein From aescleal at btinternet.com Tue Jul 8 02:36:32 2003 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (aescleal at btinternet.com) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 17:36:32 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Runepower Message-ID: <1638215.1057595792254.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> "In general according to the rules initiates donate 10% of their time, acolytes 30%, priests 50%, rune lords 90%." Strictly and by the book it's 90% for priests and lords, 50% for acolytes and 10% for initiates. While Lords mostly adventure "for the cult" Priests are there to support their congregation and temples so don't get out as much. Generally if a Priest adventures it's going to be in support of a group of initiates or a RuneLord. "Depends on how you play the rules. I am assuming you make them roll POW *3 to become a priest?" I used to do the random thing, but these days I evaluate what they've done for the cult, how well they follow the doctrines or their God, that sort of thing. "Even in this case becoming an acolyte should be much easier." Nah, should be the other way 'round... I'm hopefully not being deliberately contrary here, but they seem to be some sort of half way house thing to allow RQII style associate priests in RQIII. (Not to mention the surprise RuneLord-Acolyte thing that turned up first in "Sun County.") "You get a party of Lightbringers who discover the possibilities of this spell and you got a handful. No one has done it in my campaigns so far, but I have participated in things like this as a player." Again, no sane lightbringer is going to mind link themselves to a Trickster unless he's bonded to a chieftain (in Glorantha, anyway). Tricksters are insane and you wouldn't want the buggers rooting about in your mind, playing with your magic. "Whooo! Sparklers!" as you find them lobbing your thunderbolts about. As for the sanctification thing, that's a good spell to know (with or without RunePower) as you can sanctify an area and then use it for a worship ceremony. Oh, and one thing I forgot to add to the RunePower rules: - If a spell is cast, the Runepower used to cast or extend it may not be recovered 'til the spell it powers expires. Cheers, Ash From aescleal at btinternet.com Tue Jul 8 02:48:22 2003 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (Ashley Munday) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 17:48:22 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Caos/evil oriented adventurers In-Reply-To: <20030707034111.5378.qmail@web41101.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <000101c344a7$93f15600$cb117ad5@mastakos> Never done a whole game, although one game I played in had an unfortunate merchant with a chaotic feature that was frantically trying to find out how to use the Zola Fel River to cleanse himself. He met a sticky end after running into a bunch of Bison Riders and their local nutter. The game I ran had an Illuminated Mrelli (brown elf) that's hell bent on saving his forest from Lunar farmers. He'd gone out of his way to pick up a couple of unsavoury chaotic abilities to help his cause. (He'll be a good test for the RunePower rules as one of his chaotic features is +3d6 POW - maximum POW of 47 IIRC - Arrow Trances for all occasions.) Cheers, Ash > -----Original Message----- > From: rq-rules-admin at crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-admin at crashbox.com]On > Behalf Of Leon Kirshtein > Sent: 07 July 2003 04:41 > To: rq-rules at crashbox.com > Subject: [RQ-Rules] Caos/evil oriented adventurers > > > I am enjoying the current level of discussion on this > list. So in a blatant attempt to maintain it, here is > another question: > > How many of you have, or had a campaign based on > chaos/evil oriented adventures. And, what was the > makeup/cult affiliations of the party? > > ===== > Leon Kirshtein > www.godlearner.d2g.com > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! > http://sbc.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From LKirshtein at howost.com Tue Jul 8 02:57:40 2003 From: LKirshtein at howost.com (Kirshtein, Leon) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 12:57:40 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Priesthood requirements Message-ID: <3156D872DCD0D411AF85000102C00AE60E7F3BC8@hosntexch01.howost.strykercorp.com> Ash wrote: >Strictly and by the book it's 90% for priests and lords, 50% for acolytes and 10% for initiates. While Lords mostly adventure "for the cult" Priests are there to support their congregation and temples so don't get out as much. Generally if a Priest adventures it's going to be in support of a group of initiates or a Rune Lord. I don't have my rule books with me. But I always thought it was 50% for priests. >>"Even in this case becoming an acolyte should be much easier." >Nah, should be the other way 'round... I'm hopefully not being deliberately contrary here, but they seem to be some sort of half way house thing to allow RQII style associate priests in RQIII. (Not to mention the surprise Rune Lord-Acolyte thing that turned up first in "Sun County.") So how could a "half way house" thing be more difficult to get into then priesthood? I have always looked at acolytes as a very senior initiates who may fill in on if no priest is available or until such time there is an opening for a priest. Note what not all cults have acolytes, so the Rune Lord-Acolyte combo is rather unusual, but common for adventures since it is one of the things they look for. RQ3 rules do not automatically give re-usable divine magic to Rune Lords. We actually played it that way even before Sun County came out, so it was not a big shock. The pyramid thing with the Thanatari heads on the other hand was an eye opener. :) Leon Kirshtein From LKirshtein at howost.com Tue Jul 8 03:57:08 2003 From: LKirshtein at howost.com (Kirshtein, Leon) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 13:57:08 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Runepower Message-ID: <3156D872DCD0D411AF85000102C00AE60E7F3BCC@hosntexch01.howost.strykercorp.com> By the way, for those of you who are using Runepower pools, how do you handle creation of divine matrices? What about true stone? Leon Kirshtein www.godlearner.d2g.com From trevor.ellis at pobox.com Tue Jul 8 04:32:12 2003 From: trevor.ellis at pobox.com (Trevor Ellis) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 19:32:12 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Caos/evil oriented adventurers References: <20030707034111.5378.qmail@web41101.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <004401c344b6$415d8350$0200000a@trevorellis> 1) Chaos Group: I recently had a great time as one of a band of young, very primitive, semi-nomadic Broo. Dealing with one's pecking-order relationship within the 'pack' was almost as much fun as the battles to encroach on a neighbour's territory. The few contacts with Humans usually resulted in us getting beat, or humiliated. We decided that these young Broo knew nothing about human buildings (especially draw-bridges) so when we found a fortified building on the river's edge we charged across an open field at the entrance in the stockade. They drew-up the bridge and we were stuck outside the wall, looking silly, and getting hit by arrows. 2) Mixed Group: Trying to mix Chaos and Law in the same party would in 99.99% of cases be too difficult to manage in a believable way. Going wider than this I would suggest that allowing a member of the party to have a type of 'dark secret' that would cause violent opposition from, or serious harm to the others is very dangerous. It is difficult to GM fairly and without taking sides Also after the PC traitor is unmasked it becomes hard for any other character run by that Player to be trusted by the others, or for the GM to retain the trust of any of the Players. 3) Evil I'm also not sure that I understand the term Evil. I've objected to it since the days of D&D. Evil is only that which is the opposite of those views that one holds fanatically. Trevor Ellis --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From gerall at chromebob.com Tue Jul 8 05:01:26 2003 From: gerall at chromebob.com (Gerall Kahla) Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 14:01:26 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Rune Power In-Reply-To: <3156D872DCD0D411AF85000102C00AE60E7F3BBD@hosntexch01.howost.strykercorp.com> References: <3156D872DCD0D411AF85000102C00AE60E7F3BBD@hosntexch01.howost.strykercorp.com> Message-ID: <3F09C386.4030504@chromebob.com> Kirshtein, Leon wrote: [snip] > I play that a power gain actually happens over about a 3 day period and the > character does not need to take that time off. He can continue to adventure > while his power is "increasing", no "vegetation" is required. This is where our games don't mesh together. Is this a house rule, or did I assume RQ3 had the same rule as RQ2? > > Gerall Kahla wrote: > What's so bad about a Mindlink 5? [snip] > Mindlink is a very useful spell and can boost a characters mp to fairly > impressive levels. Just imagine a character Mindlinking with his bound > elementals/int spirits or even pack animals. A Mindlink 5 can give a > character access to an additional 75 mp in a hurry. There are some things > to be careful about, but impressive never the less. Wa! I hadn't considered all the pack beasts and their accumulated POW. As for INT spirits, I thought you got their POW anyway? Just don't use the last point... > > Gerall Kahla wrote: > I have no Players who have access to the Hallucinate divine spell, but your > level of concern is remarkable. I'll look up specifics and see if I agree. > > This spell deserves a thread of its own. But in general it gives 12pt of > Illusionary Rune magic per point of Hallucinate. The catch is what it works > only on the caster. Now you must remember what in RQ illusions are real for > all intense. At first you may say: "So what, it doesn't really work on > anybody but the caster. ", but then you think.... Lets say the caster > Hallucinates the sword you are wielding does not exist, that means that > weapon can no longer damage him; or lets say he Hallucinates that your > armor is not there, so any attack made by him will ignore you physical > armor; or the caster Hallucinates doorway to a pocket dimension or what > ever. Now combine this spell with Mindlink and you have a whole party being > able to do things like this. > My point is that this spell is open to abuse and multiple casting increase > its level of potential for such abuse. [snip] Yowsers! Each point equals 12 points of *any* Illusion magic?!? Yes, this could seriously affect the reality of gameplay... Now given the access my Players have to Trickster magic, I don't need to worry about this anytime soon, but still I appreciate your warning! Man, I like these RunePower threads, if only to see what other people are using out there. Thanks to the originator of the thread. May your gaming be fun and enjoyable to the end of your days... Pax -- -- G. Kahla - he who codes From gerall at chromebob.com Tue Jul 8 05:09:32 2003 From: gerall at chromebob.com (Gerall Kahla) Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 14:09:32 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Runepower In-Reply-To: <98FB5B34-B08B-11D7-B67E-000A277B64F4@ntlworld.com> References: <98FB5B34-B08B-11D7-B67E-000A277B64F4@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <3F09C56C.3000506@chromebob.com> Alan Richards wrote: [snip] > A possible idea (tweaked from my sorcery rules) is to limit the points > which may be put into 1 Rune spell to (Pow-15) with a minimum of 1. This I like. It makes the raw game-smashing ability of the higher-point divine spells felt by the people who cast them... And it's subtle enough not to introduce too many more housekeeping rules. [snip] > I'm definitely going to swipe the idea that Priests must have > Divination, Initiate, Spell Teach, and Worship (Deity) as part of their > 10 point quota. It only makes sense when you consider the "normal" role the priests play in their community; Spiritual guides along the path their diety wants their followers to take. > In terms of general Power pools. I do it as follows: > > Initiation (or Apprentice bonding for Shaman and Sorcerers) costs 1 Pow. > This opens up the link to the 'other side'. The Apprentice / Initiate > now effectively has an empty pot on the Spirit plane. > > Any additionally gained Pow may be sacrificed to this pot immediately. > 'Core' Pow as it were may only be sacrificed with a successful ritual. > > 1. Shaman > > Once a Shaman's astral pool is equal to his/her 'core' Pow (s)he has > awakened their fetch. Yes this does mean that the Shaman now has a much > more powerful fetch. > > All Perception skills are penalised by (fetch's Pow)% > The fetch may be used to bind spirits as usual > It adds to Shaman's Pow/MPs for defending against offensive magic. This is great! I really like the Perception penalty... Does the Astral Pool affect the POW/MP before the fetch is awakened? > 2. Priests / Cultists > > The other side pool is their Runepower pool. It has no effect other than > as a pool for casting Rune Magic. This is standard to my game. > 3. Sorcerer > > The Sorcerer's pool is unusable until (s)he binds it to a familiar or > Mandala. This can only be done once the pool is equal to the Sorcerer's > core Pow. The ritual to do this costs 1 Pow from each pool. (otherwise > they would not be equal now would they?) Meaning, if I had a sorcerer with an 18 POW (and a Pool of 18 POW), that after the ritual to create the familiar they would both have a 17 POW? > I use the Elric Unknown East rule whereby in fact the Sorcerer has > swapped his soul with that of the familiar. Which can lead to all kinds > of silly or devastating effects. So the sorcerer's Point of View is moved to the familiar? That doesn't sound too fun. Sounds downright dangerous, actually... -- G. Kahla - he who codes From gerall at chromebob.com Tue Jul 8 05:23:04 2003 From: gerall at chromebob.com (Gerall Kahla) Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 14:23:04 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Rune Power In-Reply-To: <3314435.1057590036230.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> References: <3314435.1057590036230.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <3F09C898.2060001@chromebob.com> aescleal at btinternet.com wrote: [snip] > As to the rules themselves: > > 1) No such thing as sacrificing (a'la DnD) for uses of a specific > spell anymore. All POW sacrificed to a God ends up in Runepower > pool that can be used to cast any Divine Magic spell the caster > knows. It takes a day and a successful "worship " spell cast > to sacrifice 1 POW for 1 runepower. This meshes perfectly with your rule below about "learning a divine spell". It also makes the act of your character using the 'worship ' spell meaningful! Which is not as easy as it seems... What happens if the Player must officiate because his High Priest is out of town for the week? If you don't use RunePower Pools, he better have at least 2 'worship ' spells on tap... > 2) To regain a point of runepower takes a sacrifice of 10 magic > points (at 1 mpt/hour) and a successful " Lore/Mythology" > roll at a temple. Only one person per 100 worshippers at a temple > or shrine may gain or regain Runepower at a temple or shrine at the > same time. More of the same!! Congrats on making a religion's mythology important! There's a reason people need to learn these things... > The clergy get first call on gaining/regaining slots, so most > initiates are going to have to pay through the snout (in service, > cash or other choirboy-like favours) to get their magic back. IMG, Initiates don't get re-usable divine magic. IF they want to sacrifice for one-shot runespells, they are allowed but they can't do it alone. A priest must be present for the time to make sure they aren't dealing with *other powers*. Getting a priest's attention for that length of time is where all the coin goes... > 3) Learning a Divine Spell takes 1 week (50 hours) and either > instruction from someone that already knows it or a successful > " Lore/Mythology" roll. (Another thing might be to allow > improvised spell use if the caster can manage a Lore roll - > sorry if that's a bit Hero Wars for the assembled masses...) I don't mind Hero Wars (Quest?) references. It's a game that uses the same world that got me interested in RPGs at all... > 4) (Dunno about this one...) When calling for Divine Intervention, > the appellant looses RunePower before he or she looses personal POW > ("Oh Lord perform this miracle for me even though thou thinks less > of me afterwards..."). IMG (where I *do* use RunePower), this is standard. My Players like to think of it as a buffer between their spirit and the awsome face of their divine hosts... And it keeps their personal POWs higher in the long run. Ash, you have reminded me of why all those skills are required by established religions. Thanks a million! Pax -- -- G. Kahla - he who codes From LKirshtein at howost.com Tue Jul 8 05:46:17 2003 From: LKirshtein at howost.com (Kirshtein, Leon) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 15:46:17 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Rune Power Message-ID: <3156D872DCD0D411AF85000102C00AE60E7F3BD5@hosntexch01.howost.strykercorp.com> Kirshtein, Leon wrote: [snip] >> I play that a power gain actually happens over about a 3 day period and the >>character does not need to take that time off. He can continue to adventure >> while his power is "increasing", no "vegetation" is required. >This is where our games don't mesh together. Is this a house rule, or did I assume RQ3 had the same rule as RQ2? This is a house rule. I make the characters rest for a week to get the skill checks, but wait the week for power gains does not make sense to me. >> Mindlink is a very useful spell and can boost a characters mp >Wa! I hadn't considered all the pack beasts and their accumulated POW. As for INT spirits, I thought you got their POW anyway? Just don't use the last point... As far as I know, you only get access to INT of an int spirit. For pack beasts I would actually drain them to 0 a lot of the time for several reasons: 1 - They become harder to steal since they are unconscious 2 - Mindlink leaves a back door to mind effecting spells and such, which bypasses protective magics 3 - That last magic point can give my Axe Tranced attack another +10% to hit ( Axe Trance 1 + Mindlink 4 = +500% to hit!!! Who's your daddy! how is that for a dangerous Runepower combo) Leon Kirshtein From steve at perrinworlds.com Tue Jul 8 06:10:36 2003 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Steve Perrin) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 13:10:36 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Caos/evil oriented adventurers References: <20030707034111.5378.qmail@web41101.mail.yahoo.com> <004401c344b6$415d8350$0200000a@trevorellis> Message-ID: <006001c344c3$d4dfbcd0$f4407442@wizard> Reminds me of the time in the early days when the gang that worked at the Chaosium decided to start up a Beast Gang group. There was a Baboon, a Morokanth, a Centaur, a Minotaur, etc. A newcomer to the group thought this would be fun and made up his own character, a Scorpion Man. He was rather upset when the whole group ganged up on the character and killed it immediately. Steve Perrin, just an onlooker, not a Beast ----- Original Message ----- From: "Trevor Ellis" To: Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 11:32 AM Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Caos/evil oriented adventurers 1) Chaos Group: I recently had a great time as one of a band of young, very primitive, semi-nomadic Broo. Dealing with one's pecking-order relationship within the 'pack' was almost as much fun as the battles to encroach on a neighbour's territory. The few contacts with Humans usually resulted in us getting beat, or humiliated. We decided that these young Broo knew nothing about human buildings (especially draw-bridges) so when we found a fortified building on the river's edge we charged across an open field at the entrance in the stockade. They drew-up the bridge and we were stuck outside the wall, looking silly, and getting hit by arrows. 2) Mixed Group: Trying to mix Chaos and Law in the same party would in 99.99% of cases be too difficult to manage in a believable way. Going wider than this I would suggest that allowing a member of the party to have a type of 'dark secret' that would cause violent opposition from, or serious harm to the others is very dangerous. It is difficult to GM fairly and without taking sides Also after the PC traitor is unmasked it becomes hard for any other character run by that Player to be trusted by the others, or for the GM to retain the trust of any of the Players. 3) Evil I'm also not sure that I understand the term Evil. I've objected to it since the days of D&D. Evil is only that which is the opposite of those views that one holds fanatically. Trevor Ellis --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From gerall at chromebob.com Tue Jul 8 06:16:02 2003 From: gerall at chromebob.com (Gerall Kahla) Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 15:16:02 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Caos/evil oriented adventurers In-Reply-To: <20030707034111.5378.qmail@web41101.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20030707034111.5378.qmail@web41101.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <3F09D502.8010307@chromebob.com> Leon Kirshtein wrote: > I am enjoying the current level of discussion on this > list. So in a blatant attempt to maintain it, here is > another question: I like your style - lotsa questions! > How many of you have, or had a campaign based on > chaos/evil oriented adventures. And, what was the > makeup/cult affiliations of the party? Once, I played in a party of Chaotics just for the Hell of it. The ringleader was a priest of Thed who had infected the rest of the group with an otherwise incurable disease if we didn't help him... There were 2 Karsht worshippers, a Thanatari headhunter, and a vampire (ala Vivamort). Oh yeah, and the abovementioned Thed bast-- ah, leader... Seems that *someone* managed to knock up a local Orderly princess, and he wanted us to get his chaos-childe back in the fold. She delivered the baby during the planning / casing out the castle phase of the plan. We got the kid back to it's papa, killing most of the inhabitants of the castle in the process... Some of the party even got the cure. Thereafter, we were all far too grossed out to entertain the idea of playing Chaos ever again. Right now, my Players are having fun running Githyanki "Illithid Hunters". They have a serious problem recognizing the sovereignty of what they call "Primes" (inhabitants of a Prime Material plane)... Their goals are lofty, their motivations are vengeful, their acts are destructive. With any luck, they'll be through with the Hive I've created for them shortly... -- Gerall Kahla, he who codes From DevinC at aol.com Tue Jul 8 07:23:14 2003 From: DevinC at aol.com (DevinC at aol.com) Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 17:23:14 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Caos/evil oriented adventurers Message-ID: <02A80ABB.175BFD89.00047AF1@aol.com> In a message dated 7/7/2003 3:10:36 PM Eastern Standard Time, steve at perrinworlds.com writes: > Reminds me of the time in the early days when the gang that worked at the > Chaosium decided to start up a Beast Gang group. There was > a Baboon, a > Morokanth, a Centaur, a Minotaur, etc. Is that the very same gang that shows up in Apple Lane? Also, when I GM'd, one player really wanted to roll up an Elf with Chaos Features (i.e. worshipper of Primal Chaos). I let him, and when the Stormbull PC sensed Chaos on him, the entire party summarily dispatched him. Devin From leonbk at yahoo.com Tue Jul 8 07:56:00 2003 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 14:56:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Chaos/evil oriented adventurers In-Reply-To: <02A80ABB.175BFD89.00047AF1@aol.com> Message-ID: <20030707215600.77645.qmail@web41112.mail.yahoo.com> --- DevinC at aol.com wrote: > Also, when I GM'd, one player really wanted to roll > up an Elf with Chaos Features (i.e. worshipper of > Primal Chaos). I let him, and when the Stormbull PC > sensed Chaos on him, the entire party summarily > dispatched him. My experience has been a little more involved. I am have a currently inactive Chaotic campaign with characters ranging from really obscene to merely gross. The group is lead by an ex-Seven Mothers acolyte, who is now a Rune Priest of Ragnaglar, acolyte of Thed and Malia. Through Hero Questing he has become an embodied spirit of disease and has a head of a dragon. He has released one of Malia's daughters (imprisoned in the world of 'Dragonlance'), whose diseases effect draconic beings!!! and took her as his concubine. Several members of his retinue(the other PC) are Tzeench worshipers (from Warhammer) in addition to worshiping Thed/Malia/Ragnaglar and two are capable of summoning and binding demons (as per Stormbringer rules). He is currently in the market for a wife. ===== Leon Kirshtein www.godlearner.d2g.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com From steve at perrinworlds.com Tue Jul 8 08:36:59 2003 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Steve Perrin) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 15:36:59 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Caos/evil oriented adventurers References: <02A80ABB.175BFD89.00047AF1@aol.com> Message-ID: <000301c344e2$34c50290$f4407442@wizard> No, different group. Steve ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 2:23 PM Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Re: Caos/evil oriented adventurers > In a message dated 7/7/2003 3:10:36 PM Eastern Standard Time, steve at perrinworlds.com writes: > > > Reminds me of the time in the early days when the gang that worked at the > > Chaosium decided to start up a Beast Gang group. There was > > a Baboon, a > > Morokanth, a Centaur, a Minotaur, etc. > > Is that the very same gang that shows up in Apple Lane? > > Also, when I GM'd, one player really wanted to roll up an Elf with Chaos Features (i.e. worshipper of Primal Chaos). I let him, and when the Stormbull PC sensed Chaos on him, the entire party summarily dispatched him. > > Devin > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From DevinC at aol.com Tue Jul 8 10:19:46 2003 From: DevinC at aol.com (DevinC at aol.com) Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 20:19:46 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Chaos/evil oriented adventurers Message-ID: <4786F9AB.1A3359B9.00047AF1@aol.com> I don't doubt an all-Chaos party can be run. The problem comes when you have a mixed group. You get the same stuff in D&D. Had a power gamer who wanted to play a drow elf in D&D because of all the neat abilities. I warned her that the rest of my players role play their races very intently and a drow isn't going to find a warm welcome in the party. She insisted anyways, stating that she was a "good aligned drow" and therefore the party would have to accept her. So she walks up cold to the party, flips back her hood revealing her dark elf features, and before she can utter the words (literally....right as they were coming out of her mouth) "Hi...I am XXXX" the two elves in the party slay her and run off to tell how they slew a drow elf scout planning an invasion. Runequest and Glorantha in particular presents a great many unique races to play as a PC. However, since the cultures and religions and attitudes of RQ/Glorantha are so fleshed out, it makes heterogenous parties difficult to play "realistically". You just can't roll up an Uz in a party of Yelmalians. And you really can't roll up Chaotics in a party of anything other than other Chaotics or Lunars. I think a Chaotic PC in a Lunar party might be very interesting and certainly could work. You'd have the certain Lunar distaste for Chaos without the official blind kill-it-it's-Chaos mentality of the Orlanthi/Yelmic followers. Devin From alan.richards75 at ntlworld.com Wed Jul 9 03:12:39 2003 From: alan.richards75 at ntlworld.com (Alan Richards) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 18:12:39 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Runepower In-Reply-To: <20030707184803.7220F4C4AA@thinbits.com> Message-ID: <61111BAD-B167-11D7-915C-000A277B64F4@ntlworld.com> Ash wrote: Oh, and one thing I forgot to add to the RunePower rules: - If a spell is cast, the Runepower used to cast or extend it may not be recovered 'til the spell it powers expires. Another thing to add to my ever growing list of "that's what I do and I've done for so long that I forgot to mention it". The same way as I always assumed that the original re-usable Rune Magic for Priests could never be reused until the original use had expired. I'm not sure if this was ever explicitly written in the rulesbooks but I am convinced that it is ''correct.' Leon wrote: By the way, for those of you who are using Runepower pools, how do you handle creation of divine matrices? What about true stone? I rule that a character can sacrifice Pow or Runepower (or Fetch or Familiar) Pow for an enchantment with equal ease and effect. Of course if the Priests potential or full Runepower pool drops below 10 points (s)he is not a Priest any more....... By the same token if I reintroduce the 18 Pow minimum for Priests if Pow drops below 18 (s)he is no longer a Priest....... On which note I am considering a compromise of 16 Pow minimum for Priests. Alan From Michael.Christian at corbis.com Wed Jul 9 03:42:42 2003 From: Michael.Christian at corbis.com (Michael Christian) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 10:42:42 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Caos/evil oriented adventurers Message-ID: <306F012D0A00D611BC9D0008C791927404AC9E06@seamail1.continuum.corbis.corp> The campaign was based in a fantasy version of Europe at the height of the Roman empire. I ran a character for several years who by many standards would probably be considered evil, but was more just exceptionally self interested and very cold hearted. The party was actually more sorcery heavy, with the exceptions being my character who was a priest of Arawn (Celtic god of the underworld and in this world patron of assassins, though this was not the case historically) and a priest of Pluto. The two priests did not usually get along being that they served rival underworld gods. We were agents of the Empire and as such were called upon to do things that were bad as often as we were asked to do things that were good. Rescuing a patricians daughter was just as likely as being sent out to assassinate someone who was considered a threat to the Empire. We made enemies all over the place, and usually left wherever we were in a hurry. It was great fun. One of my favorite evil moments was when we were being chased by some huge Balrog type thing and I picked up and threw our best sorcerer at it to slow it down. Unfortunately she somehow survived and escaped and came looking for me later, and she was (understandably) rather angry about the whole experience. -----Original Message----- From: Leon Kirshtein [mailto:leonbk at yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 8:41 PM To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Subject: [RQ-Rules] Caos/evil oriented adventurers I am enjoying the current level of discussion on this list. So in a blatant attempt to maintain it, here is another question: How many of you have, or had a campaign based on chaos/evil oriented adventures. And, what was the makeup/cult affiliations of the party? ===== Leon Kirshtein www.godlearner.d2g.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From LKirshtein at howost.com Wed Jul 9 03:51:11 2003 From: LKirshtein at howost.com (Kirshtein, Leon) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 13:51:11 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Runepower Message-ID: <3156D872DCD0D411AF85000102C00AE60E7F3BEC@hosntexch01.howost.strykercorp.com> By the way, for those of you who are using Runepower pools, how do you handle creation of divine matrices? What about true stone? Alan wrote: I rule that a character can sacrifice Pow or Runepower (or Fetch or Familiar) Pow for an enchantment with equal ease and effect. Of course if the Priests potential or full Runepower pool drops below 10 points (s)he is not a Priest any more....... By the same token if I reintroduce the 18 Pow minimum for Priests if Pow drops below 18 (s)he is no longer a Priest....... On which note I am considering a compromise of 16 Pow minimum for Priests. Yes, but how do you determine as to what type of a Rune spell is in the matrix? By the way remember what in RQII a priest had an increased racial maximum power, so they could maintain 18 power and still make power gains Leon Kirshtein From soltakss at yahoo.com Wed Jul 9 05:01:18 2003 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (=?iso-8859-1?q?Simon=20Phipp?=) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 20:01:18 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Rune Power In-Reply-To: <20030707083003.EC9D64C4A9@thinbits.com> Message-ID: <20030708190118.54784.qmail@web9602.mail.yahoo.com> Steve Perrin: > I have to say that I don't use Rune Power the way I am seeing it done here. > > My priests and Acolytes still have to sacrifice for specific spells. > However, the points they sacrifice go into a pool, so they can have > multiple > uses of one of the spells at the cost of not being able to use another > because the pool is dried up (has to be re-prayed for). So someone has > sacrificed 3 POW points for various bookeeping spells, then a Shield 2, a > Sever Spirit, a Resurrection, and a dispel 3. That's a total of 14 Divine > Pool points. If he gets into a long term battle, he can put all 14 into > Shield 2 and Sever Spirit. He can't use a cult spell he has not sacrificed > for. He cannot use Shield 14 just because he knows Shield 2. > > Steve Perrin, keeping some kind of a lid on things... > www.perrinworlds.com/SPQR.html That sounds a lot more reasonable. I could use this quite easily. Of course, I like things just the way they are, so I probably won't. But it could work in any game. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Simon Phipp" > To: > Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 3:49 PM > Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Rune Power > > > > Ashley: > > > > Me: > > > "They are far, far too powerful for anyone with more than, > > > say, 30 points of Rune Magic" > > > > > > Not really a problem in most games that I've been involved with (best > > > Priest character in my long standing game had 20 points of Runemagic). > > > Anyway, I'm curious as to how it's unusable? Strikes me that the > opposite > > > applies - the players and Ref have less bookeeping to do. > > > > The bookkeeping side of things is easier, but how difficult is it to wipe > > through a spell with a marker pen? We never had a problem with > bookkeeping > in > > RQ2/3. > > > > The problem with the system is that high level characters can cast > > unreasonably high spells that they would normally never sacrifice for or > use. > > Like Leon, we used the house rule that Priests had to have Worship > (Deity), > > Spell Teaching and Divination before they could become priests, so they > had > > to have 10 points of Divine Magic, of which at least 3 were essentially > > wasted. Also, priests tended to sacrifice for different spells to be used > in > > different situations, so a Zorak Zorani would get Spell Teaching, Worship > > Zorak Zoran, Divination, Sanctify, Shield 4, Crush 4, Berserker, Heal > Wound, > > Warding 4, Fear 3, a total of 22 (I hope). This actually counts as a > fairly > > weak Rune Priest, compared with the priests in Runemasters, say. Now, > under > > the Runepower rules, he has 22 points of Divine Magic to play with and > can > > cast Crush 11 and have 11 points of magic to play with. Crush 11 on a > maul > > would do something like 2D8 + 2D6 + 11D4 + 4 (for Bludgeon 4), with an > > average damage of 44.5 on a normal hit, enough to pound through most > normal > > opponents, even Rune Lords. Now imagine someone twice as powerful who > casts > > Crush 22, doing nearly 70 points of damage. Now imagine these being NPCs > who > > are only trying to protect their temple. They will think nothing about > > conserving their spells as they are in a backs-to-the-wall situation and > will > > blow everything against the attackers. So, you have a situation where > every > > acolyte uses all Runepower in Crush and hopes for an easy kill. This is > where > > it becomes unbalanced. > > > > In the above example. the NPC in RQ3 would only be able to have Crush 4, > the > > NPC using Runepower would use Crush 11 with some spells being held back, > or > > Crush 22 for an all-out attack. The difference in power level is so great > as > > to be unworkable, in my opinion. > > > > > "Then I tried something like this, I had a newly created priest with 33 > pts > > > of now re-usable Rune magic at one time." > > > > > > I've had someone with 15 points and that was a bit of a shock - > suddenly > > > going from never having used divine magic to "whoo hoo, lob it about > > > lads!!" > > > > That's the fun of having a Priest with that many points of Rune Magic - > they > > can lob it about to some extent. Then when it's all gone, the NPCs can > start > > lobbing it about as well :-) > > > > > I suppose I'm really after something that does away with Priests as > > > something extra magically. > > > > It all depends what you see priests as. Are they purely a status or title > or > > are they something magical. If you have the idea of Rune Level which has > > reusable Rune Magic, maybe DI support, maybe allied spirits and also have > the > > Cult Title/Job of Acolyte, Priest, Rune Lord, Chief Priest, High Priest > then > > that would probably work. You could perhaps extend it down to initiates, > so > > that everyone gets reusable magic, similar to an Eurmal cult, but make it > so > > that initiates take 3 days/point to repray, acolytes 2 days and Rune > Levels 1 > > day, or whatever. I can see that such a system could work, but I do > wonder > > what is the point? What advantages does it give over the normal system? > > > > > "A system, such as these, also remove the constrants on the NPCs to use > > > their Rune magic against the party, so in the effect you are just > > > increasing the power level of the game." > > > > > > I'd have thought it'd do the opposite - you can give the adventurers > > > something interesting to face with less divine magic behind them - > you're > > > adding to the flexibility of what the NPC can do, not their overall > power > > > level. > > > > But, when power levels creep up, as they are bound to do if people are > > allowed to make POW gain rolls, then it becomes unplayable as above. > > > > > That's assuming that newly promoted priests automatically qualify after > > > only having 10 points of reusable magic. In my experience they don't. > About > > > the only adventurers I've seen use divine magic magic have either been > so > > > far up shit creek it's the only way out or had a lot easier power gain > > > rolls. > > > > When I played an initiate character, in RQ2, you had to have 18 POW and > have > > other literacy/skill requirements to become a priest. That was fairly > > dificult to achieve and maintain. If you were lucky, you rolled up on a > high > > POW and made your POW gain roll to take you over 18 POW. When a character > > reached 18 POW, he generally sacrificed any points over 18 POW as one-use > > Rune Magic, because there was not real point in keeping POW above 18. For > a > > human, or other normal species, the species max was 21, so at 18 POW you > had > > a 15% chance of getting a POW gain roll. This was fairly low, so was not > made > > very often. We played that a Priest had to have Divination (no Spell > Teaching > > or Worship in those days), so one of the spells had to be Divination. > This > > was fairly tricky to achieve. > > > > In RQ3, it is a lot easier. There is no POW requirement to be a priest, > so > a > > character could sit on 14 POW, say, with a 35% POW gain roll, and > sacrifice > > any POW above that for Rune Magic. Assuming you get a POW gain roll each > > session, not unreasonable, and make a POW gain roll once in three > sessions, > > then you get an average POW gain of 1 POW per session. So, after 10 > sessions > > of sacrificing for Rune Magic you have your 10 points. Even if you > sacrifice > > for Spell Teaching (which I would not allow for initiates - it takes > control > > away from the Priests) and other non-productive spells, you still make > the > > grade fairly quickly. Also, a character with more than 10 points of Rune > > Magic is more likely to use it in less extreme situations, since he will > > still qualify as a Priest if he uses a couple of points. If he sacrifices > for > > those spells that he finds useful then he can up his success/survival > rate > > fairly easily. > > > > In either case, when the approriate level is reached (POW 18, 10 points > of > > divine magic) the initiate can sacrifice for and use divine magic with > > impunity. When he finally becomes a priest, the spells become reusable > and > > way-hay! > > > > Leon Kirshtein: > > > --- aescleal at btinternet.com wrote: > > > > That's assuming that newly promoted priests > > > > automatically qualify after only having 10 points of > > > > reusable magic. > > > > > > In most cases they will. The rule is 5 cult skills at > > > 50% and 10pt divine magic. Getting the skills is easy > > > the 10pt of divine is a bit more complex. > > > > In my experience, the 10 points of Divine Magic is easier than the 50% in > > Speak Languages and other skills. > > > > Generally, when I look at a rule, I have to think about several things: > > 1. What happens at the lowest level? > > 2. What happens at the highest level? > > 3. What happens in between? > > 4. How can I abuse this rule? (If I can abuse it then my players would > have > > > > abused it ten times over) > > 5. How does it affect game balance? > > > > If a rule is good then it works at low and high levels equally, it does > not > > completely unbalance the game and is not easily abusable. > > I looked at this for the Runepower rules and decided that they broke 2, 4 > and > > 5. I showed them to my players and they said the same. In fact, they > didn't > > want the rules because they made NPCs too powerful. > > > > There is also the fact that I play a very high level campaign that many > > people think of as gross, inflated, super-RQ for Power Gamers and people > who > > have no place playing RQ. If I think a rule is too powerful, what does > that > > mean for the rule? Maybe it means I am wrong, maybe that my ego is far > too > > big, but maybe that if even Simon thinks it is too powerful, then maybe > it > is > > worth having another look at it. > > > > See Y'all > > > > Simon (Who has nothing better to do than spend an hour or two answering > > emails on RQ-Rules :-( ) > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo! > > Messenger http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/ > > _______________________________________________ > > RQ-Rules mailing list > > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > > > > --__--__-- > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > End of RQ-Rules Digest ________________________________________________________________________ Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo! Messenger http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/ From soltakss at yahoo.com Wed Jul 9 05:01:52 2003 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (=?iso-8859-1?q?Simon=20Phipp?=) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 20:01:52 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Rune Power In-Reply-To: <20030707083003.EC9D64C4A9@thinbits.com> Message-ID: <20030708190152.30469.qmail@web9606.mail.yahoo.com> Steve Perrin: > I have to say that I don't use Rune Power the way I am seeing it done here. > > My priests and Acolytes still have to sacrifice for specific spells. > However, the points they sacrifice go into a pool, so they can have > multiple > uses of one of the spells at the cost of not being able to use another > because the pool is dried up (has to be re-prayed for). So someone has > sacrificed 3 POW points for various bookeeping spells, then a Shield 2, a > Sever Spirit, a Resurrection, and a dispel 3. That's a total of 14 Divine > Pool points. If he gets into a long term battle, he can put all 14 into > Shield 2 and Sever Spirit. He can't use a cult spell he has not sacrificed > for. He cannot use Shield 14 just because he knows Shield 2. > > Steve Perrin, keeping some kind of a lid on things... > www.perrinworlds.com/SPQR.html That sounds a lot more reasonable. I could use this quite easily. Of course, I like things just the way they are, so I probably won't. But it could work in any game. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Simon Phipp" > To: > Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 3:49 PM > Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Rune Power > > > > Ashley: > > > > Me: > > > "They are far, far too powerful for anyone with more than, > > > say, 30 points of Rune Magic" > > > > > > Not really a problem in most games that I've been involved with (best > > > Priest character in my long standing game had 20 points of Runemagic). > > > Anyway, I'm curious as to how it's unusable? Strikes me that the > opposite > > > applies - the players and Ref have less bookeeping to do. > > > > The bookkeeping side of things is easier, but how difficult is it to wipe > > through a spell with a marker pen? We never had a problem with > bookkeeping > in > > RQ2/3. > > > > The problem with the system is that high level characters can cast > > unreasonably high spells that they would normally never sacrifice for or > use. > > Like Leon, we used the house rule that Priests had to have Worship > (Deity), > > Spell Teaching and Divination before they could become priests, so they > had > > to have 10 points of Divine Magic, of which at least 3 were essentially > > wasted. Also, priests tended to sacrifice for different spells to be used > in > > different situations, so a Zorak Zorani would get Spell Teaching, Worship > > Zorak Zoran, Divination, Sanctify, Shield 4, Crush 4, Berserker, Heal > Wound, > > Warding 4, Fear 3, a total of 22 (I hope). This actually counts as a > fairly > > weak Rune Priest, compared with the priests in Runemasters, say. Now, > under > > the Runepower rules, he has 22 points of Divine Magic to play with and > can > > cast Crush 11 and have 11 points of magic to play with. Crush 11 on a > maul > > would do something like 2D8 + 2D6 + 11D4 + 4 (for Bludgeon 4), with an > > average damage of 44.5 on a normal hit, enough to pound through most > normal > > opponents, even Rune Lords. Now imagine someone twice as powerful who > casts > > Crush 22, doing nearly 70 points of damage. Now imagine these being NPCs > who > > are only trying to protect their temple. They will think nothing about > > conserving their spells as they are in a backs-to-the-wall situation and > will > > blow everything against the attackers. So, you have a situation where > every > > acolyte uses all Runepower in Crush and hopes for an easy kill. This is > where > > it becomes unbalanced. > > > > In the above example. the NPC in RQ3 would only be able to have Crush 4, > the > > NPC using Runepower would use Crush 11 with some spells being held back, > or > > Crush 22 for an all-out attack. The difference in power level is so great > as > > to be unworkable, in my opinion. > > > > > "Then I tried something like this, I had a newly created priest with 33 > pts > > > of now re-usable Rune magic at one time." > > > > > > I've had someone with 15 points and that was a bit of a shock - > suddenly > > > going from never having used divine magic to "whoo hoo, lob it about > > > lads!!" > > > > That's the fun of having a Priest with that many points of Rune Magic - > they > > can lob it about to some extent. Then when it's all gone, the NPCs can > start > > lobbing it about as well :-) > > > > > I suppose I'm really after something that does away with Priests as > > > something extra magically. > > > > It all depends what you see priests as. Are they purely a status or title > or > > are they something magical. If you have the idea of Rune Level which has > > reusable Rune Magic, maybe DI support, maybe allied spirits and also have > the > > Cult Title/Job of Acolyte, Priest, Rune Lord, Chief Priest, High Priest > then > > that would probably work. You could perhaps extend it down to initiates, > so > > that everyone gets reusable magic, similar to an Eurmal cult, but make it > so > > that initiates take 3 days/point to repray, acolytes 2 days and Rune > Levels 1 > > day, or whatever. I can see that such a system could work, but I do > wonder > > what is the point? What advantages does it give over the normal system? > > > > > "A system, such as these, also remove the constrants on the NPCs to use > > > their Rune magic against the party, so in the effect you are just > > > increasing the power level of the game." > > > > > > I'd have thought it'd do the opposite - you can give the adventurers > > > something interesting to face with less divine magic behind them - > you're > > > adding to the flexibility of what the NPC can do, not their overall > power > > > level. > > > > But, when power levels creep up, as they are bound to do if people are > > allowed to make POW gain rolls, then it becomes unplayable as above. > > > > > That's assuming that newly promoted priests automatically qualify after > > > only having 10 points of reusable magic. In my experience they don't. > About > > > the only adventurers I've seen use divine magic magic have either been > so > > > far up shit creek it's the only way out or had a lot easier power gain > > > rolls. > > > > When I played an initiate character, in RQ2, you had to have 18 POW and > have > > other literacy/skill requirements to become a priest. That was fairly > > dificult to achieve and maintain. If you were lucky, you rolled up on a > high > > POW and made your POW gain roll to take you over 18 POW. When a character > > reached 18 POW, he generally sacrificed any points over 18 POW as one-use > > Rune Magic, because there was not real point in keeping POW above 18. For > a > > human, or other normal species, the species max was 21, so at 18 POW you > had > > a 15% chance of getting a POW gain roll. This was fairly low, so was not > made > > very often. We played that a Priest had to have Divination (no Spell > Teaching > > or Worship in those days), so one of the spells had to be Divination. > This > > was fairly tricky to achieve. > > > > In RQ3, it is a lot easier. There is no POW requirement to be a priest, > so > a > > character could sit on 14 POW, say, with a 35% POW gain roll, and > sacrifice > > any POW above that for Rune Magic. Assuming you get a POW gain roll each > > session, not unreasonable, and make a POW gain roll once in three > sessions, > > then you get an average POW gain of 1 POW per session. So, after 10 > sessions > > of sacrificing for Rune Magic you have your 10 points. Even if you > sacrifice > > for Spell Teaching (which I would not allow for initiates - it takes > control > > away from the Priests) and other non-productive spells, you still make > the > > grade fairly quickly. Also, a character with more than 10 points of Rune > > Magic is more likely to use it in less extreme situations, since he will > > still qualify as a Priest if he uses a couple of points. If he sacrifices > for > > those spells that he finds useful then he can up his success/survival > rate > > fairly easily. > > > > In either case, when the approriate level is reached (POW 18, 10 points > of > > divine magic) the initiate can sacrifice for and use divine magic with > > impunity. When he finally becomes a priest, the spells become reusable > and > > way-hay! > > > > Leon Kirshtein: > > > --- aescleal at btinternet.com wrote: > > > > That's assuming that newly promoted priests > > > > automatically qualify after only having 10 points of > > > > reusable magic. > > > > > > In most cases they will. The rule is 5 cult skills at > > > 50% and 10pt divine magic. Getting the skills is easy > > > the 10pt of divine is a bit more complex. > > > > In my experience, the 10 points of Divine Magic is easier than the 50% in > > Speak Languages and other skills. > > > > Generally, when I look at a rule, I have to think about several things: > > 1. What happens at the lowest level? > > 2. What happens at the highest level? > > 3. What happens in between? > > 4. How can I abuse this rule? (If I can abuse it then my players would > have > > > > abused it ten times over) > > 5. How does it affect game balance? > > > > If a rule is good then it works at low and high levels equally, it does > not > > completely unbalance the game and is not easily abusable. > > I looked at this for the Runepower rules and decided that they broke 2, 4 > and > > 5. I showed them to my players and they said the same. In fact, they > didn't > > want the rules because they made NPCs too powerful. > > > > There is also the fact that I play a very high level campaign that many > > people think of as gross, inflated, super-RQ for Power Gamers and people > who > > have no place playing RQ. If I think a rule is too powerful, what does > that > > mean for the rule? Maybe it means I am wrong, maybe that my ego is far > too > > big, but maybe that if even Simon thinks it is too powerful, then maybe > it > is > > worth having another look at it. > > > > See Y'all > > > > Simon (Who has nothing better to do than spend an hour or two answering > > emails on RQ-Rules :-( ) > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo! > > Messenger http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/ > > _______________________________________________ > > RQ-Rules mailing list > > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > > > > --__--__-- > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > End of RQ-Rules Digest ________________________________________________________________________ Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo! Messenger http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/ From soltakss at yahoo.com Wed Jul 9 05:52:11 2003 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (=?iso-8859-1?q?Simon=20Phipp?=) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 20:52:11 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Runepower, Chaos/evil oriented adventurers In-Reply-To: <20030707184803.7220F4C4AA@thinbits.com> Message-ID: <20030708195211.63097.qmail@web9602.mail.yahoo.com> Leon Kirshtein: > This spell deserves a thread of its own. But in general it gives 12pt of > Illusionary Rune magic per point of Hallucinate. The catch is what it > works > only on the caster. Now you must remember what in RQ illusions are real > for > all intense. At first you may say: "So what, it doesn't really work on > anybody but the caster. ", but then you think.... Lets say the caster > Hallucinates the sword you are wielding does not exist, that means that > weapon can no longer damage him; or lets say he Hallucinates that your > armor is not there, so any attack made by him will ignore you physical > armor; or the caster Hallucinates doorway to a pocket dimension or what > ever. Now combine this spell with Mindlink and you have a whole party > being > able to do things like this. > My point is that this spell is open to abuse and multiple casting increase > its level of potential for such abuse. That's an interesting abuse of the spell, one that I never thought of. Well done, that man! Alan Richards: > I do like the idea of using the old RQII rule for Priests of Pow 18+. > I'm amazed I forgot that one and might well reintroduce it. That was one of the things about RQ3 that I liked - it did away with the 18 POW for Priests and 15 POW for Rune Lords. > I'm definitely going to swipe the idea that Priests must have > Divination, Initiate, Spell Teach, and Worship (Deity) as part of > their 10 point quota. And Excommunication, I forgot that one. It's a god one to have, though. Ashley: > 1) Initiate level adventurers and Rune Lords might get 5 adventures during > a year ~ 1 extra POW for someone carting around POW 17. > > 2) Rune Priests will be lucky to get 1 adventure during the course of a > year. They also get 1 free point of Divine Magic each year. I used Rune Lords - 2 adventures per season, Priests 1 per season, Initiates as many as they liked, because they usually had short adventures, some lasting a couple of days. > (The upshot of this is any adventurer's POW is likely to only increase a > point or two each game year. 100 points of Runemagic isn't going to happen > - at least not for human adventurers). Ah, but it did in our campaigns, because we had particularly intense ones with short scenarios for initiates, leading to more POW gain attempts. Also, over 10 game years at 10 scenarios a year you get 100 scenarios, which can give a fair amount of POW. > 3) To become a priest isn't easy - playing strictly by the rules only gives > an adventurer with 17 POW a 50/50 chance of managing it in any game year. > I've binned that roll and tend to use how well they've played their > ambition in the game and what they've done to support their religions. After a while, we used Virtues, so an initiate must roll 4 out of 5 virtues as Character Traits to proceed, showing he was upholding the cult ideals. > 4) About the only Divine Magic spell that I've heard that might cause > problems is Crush - although the number of Zorak Zoran worshippers kicking > about is fairly low and the easier availability of things like Shield and > Dismiss Magic will probably balance that out. > > (Kyger Litor's blindness sounds a bit nasty - I'll tell you what happens > with that one later...) Nasty stackable offensive spells: Lightning, Crush, Slash, Chomping, Create Fissure, Shake Earth, Earthwarm, Firespear, Swallow, Venom Boosting Nasty Non-stackable spells that I wouldn't want too often: Vomit Acid, Sweat Acid, Strike, Fear, Madness, Fang of Wachaza, Sever Spirit, Mindblast Stackable Defensive spells that become unworkable when stacked too high too easy: Shield, Shield of Darkness, Reflection Leon Kirshtein: > In general according to the rules initiates donate 10% of their time, > acolytes 30%, priests 50%, rune lords 90%. Of course adventures can also > occur on "cult time" as well. Therefore I find characters in my world more > active during the year. IMG, most players are running around with power of > 12 to 15, so they will make their power gain rolls a lot more often, of > course they will be affected by enemy magic more often as well. We usually said that initiates spent most of their 10% on minor cult missions, i.e. scenarios. They also spent most of the 90% on scenarios. Rune Lords and Priests spent most of their cult time on missions as well. The reasoning went along these lines: 1. PC Rune Levels were more like adventurers and were thus outside the normal strict cult hierachy 2. When a dangerous cult mission was required, the cult didn't want to waste its good, hard-working Rune Lords and Priests, so instead they used the PCs (expendable cannon-fodder) 3. The cults did not want these dangerous loose cannons hanging around playing cult politics, best to get them away killing chaos or sacking a chaos temple. After all, if they died then so what? If they survived then they had wiped out another enemy temple. Because of this, the PCs though they were favoured by the cult as they did all the chaos-killing missions, leaving less agressive priests to teach spells, train people in skills and do the normal priestly stuff. We tried once to get a Wind Lord to sweep the temple grounds as a lesson in humility, as part of his cult service. He immediately delegated to his initiates and went off for a rest. There was no way that his skills would be wasted on mundane tasks. Leon Kirshtein: > How many of you have, or had a campaign based on > chaos/evil oriented adventures. And, what was the > makeup/cult affiliations of the party? No Chaos as such, but plenty of evil. We had Orlanthi, Humakti, Storm Bulls, Zorak Zorani, Kyger Litori, Yelmalions, Yelornans and a smattering of other cults. When the Yelmalians went out, the Zorak Zorani stayed at home and vice versa - normally, Sometimes they banded together to destroy a shared enemy or to help friends, but it was rare. Our trolls tortured and ate people, our Orlanthi and Humakti murdered and raped people, everyone stole, most desecrated tombs, we bullied the weak and slew the innocent. We attacked enemy temples and walked over the bones of our enemies. Even though these were non-chaotic PCs, they could never be desribed as being good. They were almost certainly evil, but were considered a necessary evil, as long as they didn't hurt too many important people. Our efforts were not always restricted to NPCs, one PC sold another to a zoo and sold all his magic items, another killed a PC minotaur, skinned him and then went into the Eternal Battle to bind his soul into the skin as a slave spirit (with rolling, crazed eyes), another Light Son raped a fellow Light Son while he was under a magical sleep, one PC seduced the wife of another PC on his wedding night, another PC had several wives and married his own daughter to purify the bloodline, the other PCs constantly plotted against their fellows with various PCs and NPCs. It made things interesting. After a while, we realised that random encounters were being wandered by the PCs, not the other way around. Trevor Ellis: > 1) Chaos Group: > > I recently had a great time as one of a band of young, very primitive, = > semi-nomadic Broo. Dealing with one's pecking-order relationship within = > the 'pack' was almost as much fun as the battles to encroach on a = > neighbour's territory. The trouble with broo groups is that the weakest ends up with a couple of dozen broo larvae growing inside him. Players don't like their PCs being the butt of broo activities. Simon ________________________________________________________________________ Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo! Messenger http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/ From alan.richards75 at ntlworld.com Wed Jul 9 06:11:39 2003 From: alan.richards75 at ntlworld.com (Alan Richards) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 21:11:39 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: RQ-Rules digest, Vol 1 #174 - 12 msgs In-Reply-To: <20030708175903.9768A4C4AA@thinbits.com> Message-ID: <627D8CC2-B180-11D7-B991-000A277B64F4@ntlworld.com> Gerall Kahla wrote: (snip) Alan Richards wrote: [snip] > 1. Shaman > > Once a Shaman's astral pool is equal to his/her 'core' Pow (s)he has > awakened their fetch. Yes this does mean that the Shaman now has a much > more powerful fetch. > > All Perception skills are penalised by (fetch's Pow)% > The fetch may be used to bind spirits as usual > It adds to Shaman's Pow/MPs for defending against offensive magic. >This is great! I really like the Perception penalty... Does the >Astral Pool affect the POW/MP before the fetch is awakened? No. The Shaman gets no benefit from the pool before it becomes his/her fetch so giving a corresponding penalty seems unfair. In flavour terms the Shaman has a pool of (currently) untappable power on the other side with no permeant connection to it. An analogy might be if (and I don't) I had 10 million pounds in a hidden bank account it would not day to day do me much good. But neither would it make me a target for muggers. If I draw that 10 million pounds out, stuff it into my pockets and walk about I have lots of liquid assets (good thing) but will attract scamsters, the tax people and muggers all the time. And would therefore no doubt be rather distracted and unable to carry on living life normally. (Bad Thing) > 3. Sorcerer > > The Sorcerer's pool is unusable until (s)he binds it to a familiar or > Mandala. This can only be done once the pool is equal to the Sorcerer's > core Pow. The ritual to do this costs 1 Pow from each pool. (otherwise > they would not be equal now would they?) >Meaning, if I had a sorcerer with an 18 POW (and a Pool of 18 POW), >that after the ritual to create the familiar they would both have a 17 >POW? Absolutely correct. > I use the Elric Unknown East rule whereby in fact the Sorcerer has > swapped his soul with that of the familiar. Which can lead to all kinds > of silly or devastating effects. >So the sorcerer's Point of View is moved to the familiar? That >doesn't sound too fun. Sounds downright dangerous, actually... Except: 1. 'Direct-attack' Magic (to borrow a term from an old bold rpg called Dragon Warriors - which basically means magic which is directly attacking the character rather than a spell such as a Fireball where the magic creates a real ball of flame and it is the flame which does the hurting) cast at the Sorcerer would not work, because his/her soul is in the familiar not the body the spell is aimed at..... 2. And if the Sorcerer's body is killed (s)he is still alive (in their staff or raven or whatever) and able to take revenge. 3. And to encourage Players to choose more mundane animals as familiars I used an old WD article called 'Sounds Familiar' about the mythical powers of ordinary beasties as inspiration to give such 'boring' familiars odd abilities which the sorcerer gets to use. Like: Toads are able to inflame and to calm emotions Weasels have a chance to bring their dead offspring back to life and so on Entirely different thread: Evil/Chaos groups I once played in a WHFRP game about Chaos Champions. The GM had quite a neat character generation and advancement set of rules set up, but it actually got really dull just pootling around doing 'chaotic' and silly things. (Kind of like my first days of munchkinism but with a deliberately immoral stance rather than a amoral, blase one) Similarly I once played in an AD&D campaign which flipped across into the Ravenloft world and ending doing exactly the same, and getting just as bored. I don't know if that says more about me and the two groups I played with than it does the concept of 'evil/chaotic' campaigns. I would just bring out a quote (although its not properly a quote coz I can't remember the exact words) from RQIII about a 'Barbarian' being "historically someone who speaks a different language from you." 'Evil' likewise has always been used as a convenient label for something which goes against my interest in an argument (be that argument military, philosophical, religious, political or monetary). There are a lot of socially accepted (or ignored) behaviours in the world which if we looked at objectively could easily be classed as Evil but that takes an uncomfortable bit of self-analysis, which quite understandably, most of us shy away from. Alan PS: This might be off-topic but I haven't had this much fun without my wife for ages. From aescleal at btinternet.com Wed Jul 9 18:20:50 2003 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (aescleal at btinternet.com) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 09:20:50 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Runepower, Chaos/evil oriented adventurers Message-ID: <4325303.1057738850036.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Simon dished out three lists: "Nasty stackable offensive spells: Lightning, Crush, Slash, Chomping, Create Fissure, Shake Earth, Earthwarm, Firespear, Swallow, Venom Boosting" "Nasty Non-stackable spells that I wouldn't want too often: Vomit Acid, Sweat Acid, Strike, Fear, Madness, Fang of Wachaza, Sever Spirit, Mindblast" "Stackable Defensive spells that become unworkable when stacked too high too easy: Shield, Shield of Darkness, Reflection" All the non-stackable spells are fairly easily blocked - you should see the ammount of Shield 3 through 6 spells that get cast the minute someone thinks Sever Spirit could come into play. It's almost like a reflex action. High levels of countermagic tend to get piled on as well. As for the stackable spells and taking crush as an example... One point of shield mostly removes the effects of Crush. As soon as someone sees the crush spell go on, it's whap on the Shield or Protection (or, whip up a large Dismiss or Dispel Magic). These arguments remind me of those put forward in the early 80s as to why certain spells were "unbalancing.*" Generally it was a GM using Johny One Notes to try and liquidate a particular character in a party. You have the same problems with "standard" Divine Magic - I've seen it happen with one adventurer piling all his Divine Magic into Lightning. As I said before, it must be differences in play, 'cause I don't seem to have these problems anymore. Might also be that I don't seem to have that many punch ups anymore - perhaps one a session... Cheers, Ash *Having sad that the two saddest statements made to me from the main protagonist in this group was: - "RQIII is total shit. When I converted my RQII character I got Ceremony, Enchant and Summon at over 300%." - "The sixth time the character used Divine Intervention to come back from the dead..." From trevor.ellis at pobox.com Wed Jul 9 19:38:05 2003 From: trevor.ellis at pobox.com (Trevor Ellis) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 10:38:05 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Sustainable Broo Groups and All PCs are Evil References: <20030708195211.63097.qmail@web9602.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <006801c345fd$e98b78a0$0200000a@trevorellis> > Re: Runepower, Chaos/evil oriented adventurers > > Simon > > The trouble with broo groups is that the weakest ends up with a couple of > dozen broo larvae growing inside him. Players don't like their PCs being the > butt of broo activities. > BROO TROOPS I'm trying to imagine a Broo troop where the weakest (and therefore the nearly always the youngest) is used as a one-use breeding vessel. Firstly the average age of the troop would be getting younger and younger. Secondly any youngster with even a little intelligence would probably try to run away. Unless that is you play Broo like the Borg, where there is no sense of the individual and everyone is willing cannon fodder to those above them. What advantage would the senior Broo gain by having an unprotected massive pile of larvae, and very few members of the troop? Just one encroachment from a Troup with greater numbers (i.e. that allowed its young to grow) would prove fatal. The basic ecological/evolutionary principles (and common sense) still apply in Glorantha IMO. Broos can not both live in groups and wantonly prey on their young. I always seek for social organisations that are sustainable (with a few odd exceptions to keep the players on their toes). Instead I prefer to see Broos more like a wolf pack, where each member is constantly looking to increase there position in the hierarchy, whilst at the same time suppressing those below them. Most 'conflicts' must be non-lethal IMO. Only a very weak Broo, or someone who made the mistake of pushing a superior too hard might well be punished as you describe. Trevor (the ecologist) Ellis SUSTAINABILITY IN GENERAL AND EVIL PCs The same principle of sustainability should also be considered when looking at all the other 'destructive' forces in Glorantha. Are all Strom Bulls totally crazy? In Prax terms should they all ride in to the Devil's Marsh, and the cult of Storm Bull disappear of a puff of bravery? For the Storm Bull cult to continue to exist, a large proportion of SB's must also recognise their responsibility (in Prax) for protecting the herd. This duty would act as a restraint on they desire a) to chase Chaos all over the world, and b) the desire to sacrifice themselves in a hopeless attack without a direct threat to the herd. Thus everything is balanced and sustainable. As usual the PC adventurers are the Unusual, those for whom the normal social restraints and responsibilities are weak. A devout follower of (say) Waha could well argue that all Praxian adventurers are 'EVIL' in abandoning their herd for self-gratification. Indead, I will so condem all adventurers, plunders, robbers, and thieves! Trevor (the devout) Ellis DISAGREE - PCs ARE NOT EVIL I disagree with my last statements. The 9-to-5ers just don't understand or recognise the benefits that adventurers bring to the cult. The local Pavis Humakti are hired out as warehouse guards for a few clacks here, there and they manage to attend every service, and to know all the right people. But how much do they contribute to the cult, what is their 10% worth. Most adventurer's contributions well exceed those of ten stay-at-homes. It is all right and proper to worship the god (as I do) but running a temple requires money! By going out there and risking our lives we are the real supporters of the temple; not just in the 10% tithes but also in all the training and spells that we buy. Without us that temple building would have fallen down. What thanks do we get for it! None! We are sneered at because our armour is a little dusty and dented, and we get pushed to rear during ceremonies. Only when there is something dangerous to do will people come running to us! When I'm a priest I will insist thet everyone gives adventures the respect they deserve. Trevor (the brave) Ellis p.s. Am I being too Lunar-ish to see that all three of the above points are closely linked. --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From aescleal at btinternet.com Wed Jul 9 21:17:31 2003 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (aescleal at btinternet.com) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 12:17:31 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Sustainable Broo Groups and All PCs are Evil Message-ID: <5089174.1057749451234.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> "Are all Strom Bulls totally crazy?" Most are. You'd have to be to face a bunch of Broo knowing that Deaths the best thing that could happen to you if you don't kill or scatter the lot of them. "In Prax terms should they all ride in to the Devil's Marsh, and the cult of Storm Bull disappear of a puff of bravery?" Nope, their role is to protect others in their clan from Chaos - only the Khans and proto Khans go into the marsh regularly to show how hard they are. "As usual the PC adventurers are the Unusual, those for whom the normal social restraints and responsibilities are weak." I really don't buy this - there are loads of Adventures to be had in doing the everyday things that happen. The responsibilities of the adventurers should drive the Adventures not be "something in the way" of going "adventuring". Cheers, Ash From tiberius at runequest.za.org Wed Jul 9 21:42:20 2003 From: tiberius at runequest.za.org (tiberius at runequest.za.org) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 13:42:20 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] RQ Articles in Dragon magazine Message-ID: <11799.196.8.104.31.1057750940.squirrel@mail.wack.co.za> I have finally compiled the list of RQ related artciles published in Dragon magazine. As my colection if far from complete, I am sure the list is not as exhaustive as it could be. Please feel free to mail me with any other articles you know of. you can view the list at http://www.runequest.za.org/article/articleview/112/1/0 Tony -- What does an Austrailin Ent say in greeting? . . Gidday Spruce. From gerall at chromebob.com Wed Jul 9 22:13:33 2003 From: gerall at chromebob.com (Gerall Kahla) Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 07:13:33 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] priest candidate requirements -- Message-ID: <3F0C06ED.5010200@chromebob.com> Greets all -- I'm reading through several threads and see people discussing the requirements to make priesthood in RQ3. Things have changed a lot since my RQ2 days, and I'd like to incorporate the ideas being thrown around. So, to that end, this email will attempt to gather together the requirements to make priest: 1 - initiate in good standing 2 - min 10 points of divine magic 2a - including 1 point of Worship [deity] (to officiate) 2b - including 1 point of Spellteaching (to make money for the temple) 2c - including 1 point of Divination (to gain answers from the divine) 3 - four cults skills at 50% (to lead by example) 3a - recommended skill in [cult] Lore/Mythology (to answer questions) 4 - must have a total of 50% in all ritual magic skills (to tend to spiritual matters of congregation) Now (to my RQ2 tainted thinking) having RQ3 do away with the min 18 POW rule is a little strange, but it *is* liberating! For my game, I think I'll require a minimum POW of 15 for applicants... After your acceptance, your POW can see-saw like the rest of the party's and the Powers That Be shouldn't care much. I'd also be willing to allow that lower POW candidates can make it in, if their other requirements go beyond the minimums above (especially for cults w/o a current priest). To address the points of administrata, I'd say that High Priests have some requirements as well: 1 - priest in good standing 2 - must have Initiate divine spell 3 - must have Excommunicate divine spell 4 - must have a total of 70% in all ritual magic skills 5 - must have 50% in [cult] Lore/Mythology I'll also hold that candidates for High Priest must also have a minimum POW of 15. Should it fall below that level during their administration, well... There have been historical cases where a High Priest has done something spiritually draining and kept his post just because there wasn't anyone else to fill it. What does the rest of the list think? Please note: This post is addressing the prospect of *becoming* a priest, and I've made no mention of the time requirements, tithes, etc that are applied after acceptance. That's kind of on purpose. I'm focusing on the process of becoming a priest, not being one. Feedback is always appreciated! -- G. Kahla - he who codes From talmeta at talmeta.net Wed Jul 9 22:54:22 2003 From: talmeta at talmeta.net (Tal Meta) Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 08:54:22 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Runepower, Chaos/evil oriented adventurers References: <20030708195211.63097.qmail@web9602.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <3F0C107E.7040209@talmeta.net> Simon Phipp wrote: > Leon Kirshtein: > >>all intense. At first you may say: "So what, it doesn't really work on >>anybody but the caster. ", but then you think.... Lets say the caster >>Hallucinates the sword you are wielding does not exist, that means that >>weapon can no longer damage him; or lets say he Hallucinates that your >>armor is not there, so any attack made by him will ignore you physical >>armor; or the caster Hallucinates doorway to a pocket dimension or what >>ever. Now combine this spell with Mindlink and you have a whole party While Hallucinate is a way cool spell, and I've used it to some effect, I wouldn't allow the above. Illusions create things, they don't negate them. Now, of course, if you Hallucinate that you're wearing enchanted iron plate armor, that sword blow probably won't hurt as much, and the monkey bars only you can see will allow you to do some pretty amazing acrobatic maneuvers to get behind the other guy, as well.... Of course, this opens up the whole can of worms concerning imaginary doors in walls, or illusionary pits... -- talmeta at talmeta.net - Heretic, Dilettante, & God-Machine AIM - talmeta ICQ - 12594453 Homepage - The other day, I went to a tourist information booth and asked, "Tell me about some of the people who were here last year". -- Steven Wright From LKirshtein at howost.com Wed Jul 9 23:13:52 2003 From: LKirshtein at howost.com (Kirshtein, Leon) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 09:13:52 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] priest candidate requirements Message-ID: <3156D872DCD0D411AF85000102C00AE60E7F3BF5@hosntexch01.howost.strykercorp.com> .>So, to that end, this email will attempt to gather together the requirements to make priest: >1 - initiate in good standing For at least 1 year. >2 - min 10 points of divine magic >2a - including 1 point of Worship [deity] (to officiate) >2b - including 1 point of Spellteaching (to make money for the temple) >2c - including 1 point of Divination (to gain answers from the divine) We do not require Divination, but do mandate Initiate (to induct new members) and Sanctify (a must for any kind of ceremony outside a temple). Most people join religions with the help of their local priest and not the High Priest. >3 - four cults skills at 50% (to lead by example) >3a - recommended skill in [cult] Lore/Mythology (to answer questions) >4 - must have a total of 50% in all ritual magic skills (to tend to spiritual matters of congregation) The rules in RQ3 state 50% in ritual skills, so our take on it was 50% between base Ceremony, Enchant, Summon, and Magic Modifier (counted once) Note: If you are doing away with RQ2 POW 18 minimum, you should also do away with the increased racial power for priests to balance it out. Requirements for acolytes are the same as priests, but there is a difference in time, status, and spell availability. Leon Kirshtein From LKirshtein at howost.com Wed Jul 9 23:25:00 2003 From: LKirshtein at howost.com (Kirshtein, Leon) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 09:25:00 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Hallucinate Message-ID: <3156D872DCD0D411AF85000102C00AE60E7F3BF8@hosntexch01.howost.strykercorp.com> Like I said this spell deserves a thread of its own! Tal wrote: > >>all intense. At first you may say: "So what, it doesn't really work on >>anybody but the caster. ", but then you think.... Lets say the caster >>Hallucinates the sword you are wielding does not exist, that means that >>weapon can no longer damage him; or lets say he Hallucinates that your >>armor is not there, so any attack made by him will ignore you physical >>armor; or the caster Hallucinates doorway to a pocket dimension or what >>ever. Now combine this spell with Mindlink and you have a whole party >While Hallucinate is a way cool spell, and I've used it to some effect, I wouldn't allow the above. Illusions create things, they don't negate them. This spells works on the casters mind. If the caster does not believe that something is there, its not there. If you prefer, he can persive it to be a wet noodle instead of not there. The effect would be the same >Now, of course, if you Hallucinate that you're wearing enchanted iron plate armor, Now that is something I would not allow. I do not think you can make illusions of enchantments. I have no problem with the iron part and in this case the person would get 13AP (and the encumbrance penalty for wearing it) >Of course, this opens up the whole can of worms concerning imaginary doors in walls, or illusionary pits... Try extra-dimensional gates to really blow your mind Leon Kirshtein From LKirshtein at howost.com Wed Jul 9 23:37:49 2003 From: LKirshtein at howost.com (Kirshtein, Leon) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 09:37:49 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Nasty stackable spells Message-ID: <3156D872DCD0D411AF85000102C00AE60E7F3BFA@hosntexch01.howost.strykercorp.com> > Nasty stackable offensive spells: Lightning, Crush, Slash, Chomping, Create Fissure, Shake Earth, Earthwarm, Firespear, Swallow, Venom Boosting Out of all of these the only one that gives me the "fits" is -- Swallow Why? No POW vs. POW required and it (no matter what it is!!!) is gone forever!!! Leon Kirshtein From talmeta at talmeta.net Wed Jul 9 23:37:52 2003 From: talmeta at talmeta.net (Tal Meta) Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 09:37:52 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Hallucinate References: <3156D872DCD0D411AF85000102C00AE60E7F3BF8@hosntexch01.howost.strykercorp.com> Message-ID: <3F0C1AB0.7000902@talmeta.net> Kirshtein, Leon wrote: > Like I said this spell deserves a thread of its own! And now it has one. :) > This spells works on the casters mind. If the caster does not believe that > something is there, its not there. If you prefer, he can persive it to be a > wet noodle instead of not there. The effect would be the same That's my point. He can disbelieve in the sword all he wants; maybe he won't even feel the very real wounds it is leaving on his body. But eventually, shock and blood loss will take their toll. Exact change, please - no EasyPass. > Now that is something I would not allow. I do not think you can make > illusions of enchantments. I have no problem with the iron part and in this > case the person would get 13AP (and the encumbrance penalty for wearing it) Yes, true. Perhaps I should have said mithral or adamant; something with an excessive amount of armor points. The problem with Hallucinate is how to measure how much of the universe is based in reality, or in our perception of what reality is. Or, to quote a former President, "It depends on what your definition of 'is' is". -- talmeta at talmeta.net - Heretic, Dilettante, & God-Machine AIM - talmeta ICQ - 12594453 Homepage - "We know that communication is a problem, but the company is not going to discuss it with the employees." (Switching supervisor, AT&T Long Lines Division) From LKirshtein at howost.com Wed Jul 9 23:49:26 2003 From: LKirshtein at howost.com (Kirshtein, Leon) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 09:49:26 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Hallucinate Message-ID: <3156D872DCD0D411AF85000102C00AE60E7F3BFD@hosntexch01.howost.strykercorp.com> >> This spells works on the casters mind. If the caster does not believe that >> something is there, its not there. If you prefer, he can persive it to be a >> wet noodle instead of not there. The effect would be the same >That's my point. He can disbelieve in the sword all he wants; maybe he won't even feel the very real wounds it is leaving on his body. But eventually, shock and blood loss will take their toll. I disagree. The sword is not there, therefore there would be no wound to bleed. Then a illusionary hole in a wall is created, that piece is not there and a character can pass right through. Then the spell expires the character is not placed back on the other side since the hole was never there to begin with. the same holds true for the sword. The reverse is also true, an illusionary sword's damage does not fade then the sword no longer exist. Basically what I am talking about here is Hallucinate = personal version of the Matrix Leon Kirshtein From Rjmeints at aol.com Thu Jul 10 00:45:31 2003 From: Rjmeints at aol.com (Rjmeints at aol.com) Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 10:45:31 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Dragon Magazine articles Message-ID: <5A233105.62E03A42.00817004@aol.com> Tiberius, I have a listing of RQ/Gloranthan articles on my website. I don't include listings for adverts, but I have a few issues on my list that aren't on yours. Here's the link: http://www.glorantha.info/othermags/othermags.html Take a look. There are lots of mags I have indexed. Rick > From: tiberius at runequest.za.org > To: rq-rules at crashbox.com > Subject: [RQ-Rules] RQ Articles in Dragon magazine > Reply-To: rq-rules at crashbox.com > > I have finally compiled the list of RQ related artciles published in > Dragon magazine. As my colection if far from complete, I am sure the list > is not as exhaustive as it could be. Please feel free to > mail me with any > other articles you know of. you can view the list at > http://www.runequest.za.org/article/articleview/112/1/0 > Tony From alan.richards75 at ntlworld.com Wed Jul 9 06:11:39 2003 From: alan.richards75 at ntlworld.com (Alan Richards) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 21:11:39 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: RQ-Rules digest, Vol 1 #174 - 12 msgs In-Reply-To: <20030708175903.9768A4C4AA@thinbits.com> Message-ID: <627D8CC2-B180-11D7-B991-000A277B64F4@ntlworld.com> Gerall Kahla wrote: (snip) Alan Richards wrote: [snip] > 1. Shaman > > Once a Shaman's astral pool is equal to his/her 'core' Pow (s)he has > awakened their fetch. Yes this does mean that the Shaman now has a much > more powerful fetch. > > All Perception skills are penalised by (fetch's Pow)% > The fetch may be used to bind spirits as usual > It adds to Shaman's Pow/MPs for defending against offensive magic. >This is great! I really like the Perception penalty... Does the >Astral Pool affect the POW/MP before the fetch is awakened? No. The Shaman gets no benefit from the pool before it becomes his/her fetch so giving a corresponding penalty seems unfair. In flavour terms the Shaman has a pool of (currently) untappable power on the other side with no permeant connection to it. An analogy might be if (and I don't) I had 10 million pounds in a hidden bank account it would not day to day do me much good. But neither would it make me a target for muggers. If I draw that 10 million pounds out, stuff it into my pockets and walk about I have lots of liquid assets (good thing) but will attract scamsters, the tax people and muggers all the time. And would therefore no doubt be rather distracted and unable to carry on living life normally. (Bad Thing) > 3. Sorcerer > > The Sorcerer's pool is unusable until (s)he binds it to a familiar or > Mandala. This can only be done once the pool is equal to the Sorcerer's > core Pow. The ritual to do this costs 1 Pow from each pool. (otherwise > they would not be equal now would they?) >Meaning, if I had a sorcerer with an 18 POW (and a Pool of 18 POW), >that after the ritual to create the familiar they would both have a 17 >POW? Absolutely correct. > I use the Elric Unknown East rule whereby in fact the Sorcerer has > swapped his soul with that of the familiar. Which can lead to all kinds > of silly or devastating effects. >So the sorcerer's Point of View is moved to the familiar? That >doesn't sound too fun. Sounds downright dangerous, actually... Except: 1. 'Direct-attack' Magic (to borrow a term from an old bold rpg called Dragon Warriors - which basically means magic which is directly attacking the character rather than a spell such as a Fireball where the magic creates a real ball of flame and it is the flame which does the hurting) cast at the Sorcerer would not work, because his/her soul is in the familiar not the body the spell is aimed at..... 2. And if the Sorcerer's body is killed (s)he is still alive (in their staff or raven or whatever) and able to take revenge. 3. And to encourage Players to choose more mundane animals as familiars I used an old WD article called 'Sounds Familiar' about the mythical powers of ordinary beasties as inspiration to give such 'boring' familiars odd abilities which the sorcerer gets to use. Like: Toads are able to inflame and to calm emotions Weasels have a chance to bring their dead offspring back to life and so on Entirely different thread: Evil/Chaos groups I once played in a WHFRP game about Chaos Champions. The GM had quite a neat character generation and advancement set of rules set up, but it actually got really dull just pootling around doing 'chaotic' and silly things. (Kind of like my first days of munchkinism but with a deliberately immoral stance rather than a amoral, blase one) Similarly I once played in an AD&D campaign which flipped across into the Ravenloft world and ending doing exactly the same, and getting just as bored. I don't know if that says more about me and the two groups I played with than it does the concept of 'evil/chaotic' campaigns. I would just bring out a quote (although its not properly a quote coz I can't remember the exact words) from RQIII about a 'Barbarian' being "historically someone who speaks a different language from you." 'Evil' likewise has always been used as a convenient label for something which goes against my interest in an argument (be that argument military, philosophical, religious, political or monetary). There are a lot of socially accepted (or ignored) behaviours in the world which if we looked at objectively could easily be classed as Evil but that takes an uncomfortable bit of self-analysis, which quite understandably, most of us shy away from. Alan PS: This might be off-topic but I haven't had this much fun without my wife for ages. From alan.richards75 at ntlworld.com Thu Jul 10 01:09:59 2003 From: alan.richards75 at ntlworld.com (Alan Richards) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 16:09:59 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: RQ-Rules digest, Vol 1 #175 - 4 msgs In-Reply-To: <20030708200603.35A2A4C4AA@thinbits.com> Message-ID: <6862E8C2-B21F-11D7-B0D0-000A277B64F4@ntlworld.com> Leon wrote: >>By the way, for those of you who are using Runepower pools, how do you >>handle creation of divine matrices? What about true stone? >>Alan wrote: >>I rule that a character can sacrifice Pow or Runepower (or Fetch or >>Familiar) Pow for an enchantment with equal ease and effect. Of course if >>the Priests potential or full Runepower pool drops below 10 points (s)he is >>not a Priest any more....... By the same token if I reintroduce the 18 Pow >>minimum for Priests if Pow drops below 18 (s)he is no longer a Priest....... >>On which note I am considering a compromise of 16 Pow minimum for Priests. >>Yes, but how do you determine as to what type of a Rune spell is in the matrix? The Rune Magic user chooses 1 Rune spell they have access to. In terms of recovery it recovers the same way as the person recharging it. eh? Joe Bloggs the Broo has a matrix with Thunderbolt in. He uses the magic and now has an empty matrix. He cannot recharge it. An Orlanthi initiate loots it from the Broo's corpse and has to carry it to the Orlanthi high holy day and engage in an act of worship to recharge it. In between times it is just an empty 3 point Rune Magic matrix. Or he donates it to his local windlord who is able to regain the use in a daily ceremony of worship. Possibly you could rule that the cult member could refill it with any 3 points of Rune Magic (in addition to regaining their own) or that the matrix must be refilled with Thunderbolt. >>By the way remember what in RQII a priest had an increased racial maximum >>power, so they could maintain 18 power and still make power gains Agreed. One of the reasons I mooted dropping this minimum Pow to 16 and so giving a better chance of a Pow gain roll. Simon mentioned adding Excommunicate to the list of must haves for a Priest's Rune Magic. I'd agree but then I came back to earth with a bump and realised I've been arguing for Runepower where the Cult member has access to any Cult Magic. So any thoughts I have on minimum Rune magic to know is all a bit silly. I suppose you could rule that half of availible Rune power must be kept back for the 'must have' spells. But where do you stop? I think I'll stick to bringing in mo opportunities for players to use these spells. And trying to work in some mix of subtle and blatant rewards for doing so. On that note another thing I haven't posted. I limit which spells are avilible to which 'ranks' of cultist. Lay Member Cult Battle Magic Initiate Cult Battle Magic and Common Rune Magic Rune level Cult Battle Magic, Common Rune Magic and Cult Battle Magic In terms of Hallucinate. I believe that the abuse of this is not an argument for the Runepower rules being broken. Either the spell is broken or the context in which the Trickster is using it has gone askew. In the Lightbringer Myths Trickster always comes along, causes trouble but is required for things to work out properly. Getting him/her into a Mindlink seems a challenge in itself and possibly fraught with all kinds of silly side effects. You could rule on the effects that Hallucinate is allowed to have or just trust the Trickster's player to be silly and capricious rather than a Rune Magic accountant. --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/enriched --- From slposey at concentric.net Thu Jul 10 01:41:55 2003 From: slposey at concentric.net (Stephen Posey) Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 09:41:55 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Dragon Magazine articles References: <5A233105.62E03A42.00817004@aol.com> Message-ID: <3F0C37C3.1000204@concentric.net> Rjmeints at aol.com wrote: > Tiberius, > > I have a listing of RQ/Gloranthan articles on my website. > I don't include listings for adverts, but I have a few issues > on my list that aren't on yours. Here's the link: > > http://www.glorantha.info/othermags/othermags.html > > Take a look. There are lots of mags I have indexed. Very cool, thanks guys. I've also just placed my Excel spreadsheet of BRP related articles from White Dwarf and Different Worlds on my web space. You can get a link here: http://www.concentric.net/~slposey/Gamelinks.htm I don't think that I have much (if anything) directly RQ related there that you guys haven't already covered; but it does include articles and reviews for Non-RQ BRP (CoC, Stormbringer, etc.). My personal favorite is probably the "Haunters of the Dark" article on designing Ghosts for CoC from White Dwarf #67, which could readily be used in pretty much any Supernatural/Fantasy BRP setting. Stephen Posey slposey at concentric.net From alan.richards75 at ntlworld.com Thu Jul 10 01:43:51 2003 From: alan.richards75 at ntlworld.com (Alan Richards) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 16:43:51 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Gaining religious status In-Reply-To: <20030709135303.869D44C4B1@thinbits.com> Message-ID: <239C869C-B224-11D7-B0D0-000A277B64F4@ntlworld.com> With reference to G. Kahla's rationalisation and drawing together of entrance requirements for the 'ranks' in a cult: I would make (Cult) Lore 50%+ a requirement not a recommendation Acolyte and Rune Lord candidates only need 1 Ritual skill at 50%+ Priest candidates need all 3 of them at 50%+ Acolyte and Priest candidates need the 4 cult skills at 50%+ A Rune Lord candidate needs them at 90%+ Now: To use the 'must have' Rune Magic with Runepower; To progress from Acolyte (and I would have Acolyte as an intermediate step for all Cults but that might just be me) to Priest. The Acolyte must have used Runepower to cast: Divination, Initiate, Sanctify, Spell Teaching, Worship before applying. Some or all of these may well have had to be supervised by a Priest. Which acts as a nice game episode and/or limiter on advancement. Otherwise the character turns up to apply and is received with an incandescently furious Priest . "You taught WHO the Lightning spell; you DO know the reason why no one else has done something that stupid don't you? Yes I know he's a cult member but he also has a tendency to pay in clipped coins and has an obsession with Orlanth's sacred lightning and its ability to reanimate his dead rat.........." A Rune Lord candidate would have been expected to use Divination and Sanctify before applying. Thus embodying the God's superior knowledge and claiming land outside of the temple for his/her glory. To progress to High Priest The Priest must have used Excommunicate (possibly supervised by a high priest) before applying. The High Priest is expected to have 90% in Cult Lore and 1 Ritual skill. Other cult skills still need only be 50%. The candidate definitely needs to have proven their worth at their current level (whether that takes 1 year (minimum) or 5) before the hierarchy even considers their application. A High Priest is required to test applicants for High priest. (in a cult without a High Priest presumably a heroquest is required to allow the God to directly test the applicant). A High Priest, Priest (or Rune Lord for cult's without Priests) can test those applying for all other positions. Again: "Yes well done (sigh) you are an Acolyte. The reason you are still an Acolyte is that you keep doing bloody stupid things like Initiating your worthless drinking buddies into the Cult. Do you have any idea how long its going to take me to excommunicate those two half wits you brought up to Acolyte status last night?" I'm still not completely decided on Pow minimums for positions in the cult. 16 seems 'right' to me but I'll need to play it a few times before I can decide whether my Player's are whinging for the sake of it or if this rule will be real imposition. Alan --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/enriched --- From LKirshtein at howost.com Thu Jul 10 05:36:03 2003 From: LKirshtein at howost.com (Kirshtein, Leon) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 15:36:03 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Runepower Message-ID: <3156D872DCD0D411AF85000102C00AE60E7F3C09@hosntexch01.howost.strykercorp.com> Alan wrote: I'd agree but then I came back to earth with a bump and realized I've been arguing for Runepower where the Cult member has access to any Cult Magic. So any thoughts I have on minimum Rune magic to know is all a bit silly. I suppose you could rule that half of available Rune power must be kept back for the 'must have' spells. But where do you stop? I think I'll stick to bringing in mo opportunities for players to use these spells. And trying to work in some mix of subtle and blatant rewards for doing so. On that note another thing I haven't posted. I limit which spells are available to which 'ranks' of cultist. Lay Member Cult Battle Magic Initiate Cult Battle Magic and Common Rune Magic Rune Level Cult Battle Magic, Common Rune Magic and Cult Rune Magic Runepower benefits the player, since the GM assigns Rune magic to the NPC as he sees fit, with a general foreknowledge of events to come, but on the other hand, we must impose rules on its use which in turn limit this flexibility. So what is the point of having it? We remove one set of rule with another with no net gain to the system. By the way this discussion reminds my of my earlier days of playing AD&D and the fact that wizards had to memorize spells ahead of time. Some of the arguments are remarkably similar. Although, I must admit I know find myself on the other side of the fence. :) Leon Kirshtein From gerall at chromebob.com Thu Jul 10 08:40:48 2003 From: gerall at chromebob.com (Gerall Kahla) Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 17:40:48 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Hallucinate In-Reply-To: <3156D872DCD0D411AF85000102C00AE60E7F3BFD@hosntexch01.howost.strykercorp.com> References: <3156D872DCD0D411AF85000102C00AE60E7F3BFD@hosntexch01.howost.strykercorp.com> Message-ID: <3F0C99F0.2070801@chromebob.com> Kirshtein, Leon wrote: [snip] > I disagree. The sword is not there, therefore there would be no > wound to bleed. Then a illusionary hole in a wall is created, that > piece is not there and a character can pass right through. Then > the spell expires the character is not placed back on the other > side since the hole was never there to begin with. the same holds > true for the sword. It's your right to disagree and create a different system to handle illusions. However, the Illusion divine spells use the words 'add', 'create', or 'animate' to describe their effects. If you allow them to 'remove' or 'subtract' something, they're *your* spells, not the ones published in the rulebook. > The reverse is also true, an illusionary sword's damage does not > fade then the sword no longer exist. > > Basically what I am talking about here is Hallucinate = personal > version of the Matrix I can agree with your assessment of Hallucinate being too powerful as RunePower, if it's allowed to edit away portions of the local reality that the caster doesn't like. Hell, only Tricksters get that stuff anyway. Why not edit off the opponent's legs and arms and give them large, purple-spotted noses instead of their weapon? You could make off with the treasure afterwards. Pax -- -- G. Kahla - he who codes From gerall at chromebob.com Thu Jul 10 09:10:00 2003 From: gerall at chromebob.com (Gerall Kahla) Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 18:10:00 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Gaining religious status In-Reply-To: <239C869C-B224-11D7-B0D0-000A277B64F4@ntlworld.com> References: <239C869C-B224-11D7-B0D0-000A277B64F4@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <3F0CA0C8.8030205@chromebob.com> Alan Richards wrote: > With reference to G. Kahla's rationalisation and drawing together of > entrance requirements for the 'ranks' in a cult: > > I would make (Cult) Lore 50%+ a requirement not a recommendation > Acolyte and Rune Lord candidates only need 1 Ritual skill at 50%+ > Priest candidates need all 3 of them at 50%+ So, a candidate priest must have: [cult] lore 50% ceremony 50% summoning 50% enchant 50% - and - 4 cult skills at 50% ? Seems like there's a lot of skill requirements for candidate priests. More than candidate Lords... > Acolyte and Priest candidates need the 4 cult skills at 50%+ > A Rune Lord candidate needs them at 90%+ > > Now: > > To use the 'must have' Rune Magic with Runepower; > > To progress from Acolyte (and I would have Acolyte as an intermediate > step for all Cults but that might just be me) to Priest. The Acolyte > must have used Runepower to cast: > > Divination, Initiate, Sanctify, Spell Teaching, Worship D'oh!! I forgot Sanctify!! As a note, a candidate priest IMG does not have access to RunePower... Any of these spells are supposed to be purchased with permanent POW and just sit there, showing how pious the character is. I don't use the Acolyte as an intermediate step. Should I? *sound of Gerall furiously flipping through a RQ3 rulebook* There are no rules for Acolytes in the Magic Book... Hmmm... [snip] > The Priest must have used Excommunicate (possibly supervised by a high > priest) before applying. The High Priest is expected to have 90% in Cult > Lore and 1 Ritual skill. Other cult skills still need only be 50%. I like the mastery of [cult] lore for High Priest candidates. [snip] > I'm still not completely decided on Pow minimums for positions in the > cult. 16 seems 'right' to me but I'll need to play it a few times before > I can decide whether my Player's are whinging for the sake of it or if > this rule will be real imposition. Let me know how much they squeal about 16 POW... Thanks for the ideas -- -- G. Kahla - he who codes From gerall at chromebob.com Thu Jul 10 09:24:42 2003 From: gerall at chromebob.com (Gerall Kahla) Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 18:24:42 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] priest candidate requirements -- In-Reply-To: <3F0C06ED.5010200@chromebob.com> References: <3F0C06ED.5010200@chromebob.com> Message-ID: <3F0CA43A.2010506@chromebob.com> Okay, after being reminded about Sanctify and given other ideas about skills here's my new list: Requirements to apply for priesthood: #1 - Initiate in good standing (some number of years, depending on cult) #2 - must have 10 points of divine magic - one of which must be divination - one of which must be initiate - one of which must be sanctify - one of which must be spellteaching - one of which must be worship [deity] #3 - must meet skill requirements: - [cult] lore 50% - any 3 other cult skills 50% - ceremony 50% - summon 50% - enchant 50% #4 - must have a minimum POW of 15 To ascend to High Priesthood, the character must meet these requirements: #1 - Priest in good standing (some number of years, depending on cult) #2 - must have these spells as a minimum: - one point of divination - one point of excommunicate - one point of initiate - one point of sanctify - one point of spellteaching - one point of worship [deity] #3 must meet skill requirements: - [cult] lore 90% - one of ceremony, summon, or enchant at 90% #4 must have a minimum POW of 17 to apply Thanks for kicking this around. Still getting used to RQ3's strange deviations from RQ2's rules. Anyone know where I can find info on Acolytes? Pax -- -- G. Kahla - he who codes From leonbk at yahoo.com Thu Jul 10 10:09:00 2003 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 17:09:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Hallucinate In-Reply-To: <3F0C99F0.2070801@chromebob.com> Message-ID: <20030710000900.84086.qmail@web41105.mail.yahoo.com> --- Gerall Kahla wrote: > > Leon wrote: > [snip] > > I disagree. The sword is not there, therefore > there would be no > > wound to bleed. Then a illusionary hole in a wall > is created, that > > piece is not there and a character can pass right > through. Then > > the spell expires the character is not placed back > on the other > > side since the hole was never there to begin with. > the same holds > > true for the sword. > > It's your right to disagree and create a different > system to handle > illusions. However, the Illusion divine spells use > the words 'add', > 'create', or 'animate' to describe their effects. > If you allow them > to 'remove' or 'subtract' something, they're *your* > spells, not the > ones published in the rulebook. If you are making a hole in a wall aren't you removing something? If an illusion makes some appear smaller, isn't subtracting something? I am reading it as it is written our interpretation may differ. An interpretation of spell does not make it *mine*. > > The reverse is also true, an illusionary sword's > damage does not > > fade then the sword no longer exist. > > > > Basically what I am talking about here is > Hallucinate = personal version of the Matrix > > I can agree with your assessment of Hallucinate > being too powerful as > RunePower, if it's allowed to edit away portions of > the local reality > that the caster doesn't like. Hell, only Tricksters > get that stuff > anyway. Why not edit off the opponent's legs and > arms and give them > large, purple-spotted noses instead of their weapon? > You could make off with the treasure afterwords. Well Hallucinate only works on the caster, so by doing what you suggest, only he would would see it that way. It would have no actual effect on the other person. It is the only limitation on this spell which actually makes it tolerable. That and the fact that so few characters will actually see it. ===== Leon Kirshtein www.godlearner.d2g.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com From mcarthur at dstc.edu.au Thu Jul 10 11:56:35 2003 From: mcarthur at dstc.edu.au (Robert McArthur) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 11:56:35 +1000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Nasty stackable spells In-Reply-To: <3156D872DCD0D411AF85000102C00AE60E7F3BFA@hosntexch01.howost.strykercorp.com> Message-ID: <00e901c34686$7ee9a830$99b16682@vegeta> > > Nasty stackable offensive spells: Lightning, Crush, Slash, Chomping, > Create Fissure, Shake Earth, Earthwarm, Firespear, Swallow, > Venom Boosting Out of all of these the only one that gives me > the "fits" is -- Swallow Why? No POW vs. POW required and it > (no matter what it is!!!) is gone forever!!! I think most of the trickster spells are, well, way overpowered. However, they aren't overpowered in play, just when you read them on paper. Why? Because tricksters aren't in play often, and when they are they have so many, uh, problems, that IMHO and IMG they need all the power they can get! For example, I play that most trickster spells have the chance of going wrong, even when the trickster isn't meaning to do something different (not often, not often). For example, the more power put into Swallow, the more likely it is that the effect is, well, different to what the trickster is trying to do. Sometimes (MGF) is will work *just* like the trickster wants to, which surprises everyone including the little beggar him/herself. So I don't have problems with trickster spells being overpowered. In fact, big effect, high powered t.spells gives me as the GM the most fun of all. It's surprising how little they are used :-) The same, really, with nasty spells from obscure cults. You should meet them so little (well, adventurers *are* different) that you should expect big effects. Why? Because these little, obscure cults have survived for some time. They haven't done it by harnessing the winds and listening in to conversations 145km away using massively stacked windwords, they've done it (usually) by being both secret and powerful. Powerful in a limited way though. The secret and non-powerful cults have died long ago :-) Shake Earth 33? No problem. There may only be two or three places in DP where the people to do this are around. They deserve it and if you go against them, and they want to screw the countryside which provides them food, culture and power, then you're toast. Well, probably a sandwich with Shake Earth. Robert From tcantine at incentre.net Thu Jul 10 15:14:13 2003 From: tcantine at incentre.net (Thomas M. Cantine) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 22:14:13 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Excommunication Message-ID: Thus Spake Alan Richards : >To use the 'must have' Rune Magic with Runepower; > >To progress from Acolyte (and I would have Acolyte as an intermediate >step for all Cults but that might just be me) to Priest. The Acolyte >must have used Runepower to cast: > >Divination, Initiate, Sanctify, Spell Teaching, Worship This I like... (snip) >To progress to High Priest > >The Priest must have used Excommunicate (possibly supervised by a high >priest) before applying. ...this I question. It seems to me that Excommunicate is the sort of spell you don't want to have to cast at all, and if you look at two candidates applying for high priesthood, one who's excommunicated members would be a less attractive prospect than one who hasn't had to do so. Yet clearly, a priest cannot be a proper priest if he's unprepared to do it when necessary. Better just to make learning Excommunicate a fundamental part of the ordination process for becoming a priest. /=================================\ | Thomas M. Cantine | | "Will Think For Food" | \=================================/ http://www.incentre.net/tcantine From aescleal at btinternet.com Thu Jul 10 18:18:09 2003 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (aescleal at btinternet.com) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 09:18:09 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Runepower Message-ID: <3440050.1057825089274.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Leon said: "Runepower benefits the player, since the GM assigns Rune magic to the NPC as he sees fit, with a general foreknowledge of events to come, but on the other hand, we must impose rules on its use which in turn limit this flexibility." I don't understand this comment... Maybe there was something in the reply to Alan (who seems to have overly mechanised the whole process somewhat). When you say "...benefits the player..." it almost seems like you regard things as a competition between the players and the GM - which I hope you don't. Cheers, Ash From aescleal at btinternet.com Thu Jul 10 18:31:04 2003 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (aescleal at btinternet.com) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 09:31:04 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Hallucinate Message-ID: <7354605.1057825864030.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Gerall he say: "It's your right to disagree and create a different system to handle illusions. However, the Illusion divine spells use the words 'add', 'create', or 'animate' to describe their effects. If you allow them to 'remove' or 'subtract' something, they're *your* spells, not the ones published in the rulebook." Whooaaa lets not go down the Gary Gygax "It's your game, do what you want with it, but if you don't play it my way YOUR PLAYERS WILL DESERT IN DROVES, THE OCEANS WILL DRY UP AND IT WILL BE THE END OF LIFE AS WE KNOW IT!!!" route. One thing to remember in all these discussions: Game balance in RPGS is a myth - you want "game balance" go and play something you can't make up scenarios for and can actually win. Cheers, Ash From aescleal at btinternet.com Thu Jul 10 18:36:36 2003 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (aescleal at btinternet.com) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 09:36:36 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Scotscon Message-ID: <7955995.1057826196296.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Anyone going to Scotscon lurking about on this list? The reason I ask is that if there's enough people on this list attending we could perhaps set up a luddite's session of RQ. Cheers, Ash From gerall at chromebob.com Thu Jul 10 21:34:12 2003 From: gerall at chromebob.com (Gerall Kahla) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 06:34:12 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Hallucinate In-Reply-To: <7354605.1057825864030.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> References: <7354605.1057825864030.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <3F0D4F34.1050503@chromebob.com> aescleal at btinternet.com wrote: > Gerall he say: > > "It's your right to disagree and create a different system to > handle illusions. [snip] > > Whooaaa lets not go down the Gary Gygax "It's your game, do what > you want with it, but if you don't play it my way YOUR PLAYERS WILL > DESERT IN DROVES, THE OCEANS WILL DRY UP AND IT WILL BE THE END OF > LIFE AS WE KNOW IT!!!" route. You know, I almost didn't post this reply because I was afraid of reactions like this. I apologize if I've caused anyone distress with my statements. I thought the first sentence was empowering enough to the individual referee that the rest would be understood. I learned RQ2. I'm learning RQ3. I'm changing them both. I don't have a canonicaly-driven mania. Besides, I've never encountered an RQ game of any vintage that had a single "drove" of gamers, much less several which could abandon it. -- G. Kahla - he who codes From LKirshtein at howost.com Thu Jul 10 22:06:43 2003 From: LKirshtein at howost.com (Kirshtein, Leon) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 08:06:43 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Runepower Message-ID: <3156D872DCD0D411AF85000102C00AE60E7F3C0C@hosntexch01.howost.strykercorp.com> Ash wrote: >When you say "...benefits the player..." it almost seems like you regard things as a competition between the players and the GM - which I hope you don't No, nothing like competition. All that I am trying to say is that: 1. RunePower attempts to increase flexibility (A character can now choose a spell from all spells available from the cult, on the fly as opposed to having to sacrificing for some spell and only be able to cast these spells.) 2. GM does not really need such flexibility (Since most NPC do not have a long life span and the GM has an idea of what is to come, therefore knowing which spells will be useful.) 3. RunePower fails on the flexibility issue since GM must limit it in order to maintain game balance. As a separate question: How do you keep track of spells which are one use for priests? For example Resurrection is one use to most cults.. Leon Kirshtein From aescleal at btinternet.com Thu Jul 10 22:24:25 2003 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (aescleal at btinternet.com) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 13:24:25 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Runepower Message-ID: <5456848.1057839865249.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Leon wondered: "How do you keep track of spells which are one use for priests? For example Resurrection is one use to most cults.." If you cast a one use spell the RunePower's gone for good. If you don't allow initiates to regain RunePower all their magic works in the same way. Cheers, Ash From aescleal at btinternet.com Thu Jul 10 22:29:13 2003 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (aescleal at btinternet.com) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 13:29:13 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Hallucinate Message-ID: <7359185.1057840153451.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> "You know, I almost didn't post this reply because I was afraid of reactions like this." Probably my overaction - I haven't been the same since suggesting some things on the WotC DnD mailing list a while back. I was deluged with "It will break the game!" and "Monte/Skip/Jonathan are God - how dare you suggest the holy literature could be incorrect!" Cheers, Ash From soltakss at yahoo.com Thu Jul 10 22:59:12 2003 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (=?iso-8859-1?q?Simon=20Phipp?=) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 13:59:12 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Runepower In-Reply-To: <20030709234403.8C0994C4AD@thinbits.com> Message-ID: <20030710125912.32536.qmail@web9605.mail.yahoo.com> Alan Richards: > Simon mentioned adding Excommunicate to the list of must haves for a > Priest's Rune Magic. I'd agree but then I came back to earth with a > bump and realised I've been arguing for Runepower where the Cult member > has access to any Cult Magic. So any thoughts I have on minimum Rune > magic to know is all a bit silly. I suppose you could rule that half of > availible Rune power must be kept back for the 'must have' spells. But > where do you stop? I think I'll stick to bringing in mo opportunities > for players to use these spells. And trying to work in some mix of > subtle and blatant rewards for doing so. If you use the variation that you can only cast the Rune Magic you have sacrificed for, it makes a lot more sense. That way, Rune Magic is more like Battle/Spirit Magic in that you have a number of spells and can cast them as often as you want as long as you have something to power it with. So, an Orlanthi may have Spell Teaching, Worship Orlanth, Sanctify, Divination, Shield 6, Lightning 6 for RunePower 16, so he can cast Shield 6 twice and Lightning 4, using all his RP, then pray it back and cast Spell Teaching and Worship Orlanth in the temple afterwards. One reason for the restriction was to ensure that Priests didn't solely concentrate on spells for battle, to ensure they could act as proper priests. > On that note another thing I haven't posted. I limit which spells are > avilible to which 'ranks' of cultist. > > Lay Member Cult Battle Magic > Initiate Cult Battle Magic and Common Rune Magic > Rune level Cult Battle Magic, Common Rune Magic and Cult Battle Magic Does this mean that an Orlanth initiate could not sacrifice for Flight or Wind Words? Seems a bit odd. Presumably, Priests get Cult Rune Magic, not Cult Battle Magic twice? We played that Initiates and RQ2 Rune Lords could sacrifice for any reusable spell on a one-use basis, but could not sacrifice for one-use spells. So, a Zorak Zorani initiate could sacrifice for Crush but not Sever Spirit. > In the Lightbringer Myths Trickster always comes along, causes trouble > but is required for things to work out properly. Getting him/her into a > Mindlink seems a challenge in itself and possibly fraught with all > kinds of silly side effects. You could rule on the effects that > Hallucinate is allowed to have or just trust the Trickster's player to > be silly and capricious rather than a Rune Magic accountant. We had a simple rule - never go into Mindlink with someone who you didn't want tramping through your mind. We assumed that anyone would try to cast your spells, so we only used Mindlink for party members and even then only certain trusted friends. > To progress from Acolyte (and I would have Acolyte as an intermediate > step for all Cults but that might just be me) to Priest. I agree, I liked the acolyte status, better than RQ2 Associate Priest and far better than jumping from initiate to Priest. > To progress to High Priest > > The Priest must have used Excommunicate (possibly supervised by a high > priest) before applying. The High Priest is expected to have 90% in > Cult Lore and 1 Ritual skill. Other cult skills still need only be 50%. We sort of played that only Chief Priests or High Priests could Excommunicate people, and then only under certain circumstances. This stopped PC priests excommunicating rivals out of spite and vice versa. > "Yes well done (sigh) you are an Acolyte. The reason you are still an > Acolyte is that you keep doing bloody stupid things like Initiating > your worthless drinking buddies into the Cult. Do you have any idea how > long its going to take me to excommunicate those two half wits you > brought up to Acolyte status last night?" We played that Acolytes could not initiate people into cults, they were suporters, not leaders. Only Priests or Lords could initiate and promote people. Gerall Kahla: > I don't use the Acolyte as an intermediate step. Should I? *sound of > Gerall furiously flipping through a RQ3 rulebook* There are no rules > for Acolytes in the Magic Book... Hmmm... Someone can progress from initiate straight to priest without a problem, if there is a vacancy and if the character is worthy. The advantage of being an acolyte is that the Priests can see if he is any god before giving him a fancy hat. > Okay, after being reminded about Sanctify and given other ideas about > skills here's my new list: > > Requirements to apply for priesthood: > #1 - Initiate in good standing > (some number of years, depending on cult) > #2 - must have 10 points of divine magic > - one of which must be divination > - one of which must be initiate > - one of which must be sanctify > - one of which must be spellteaching > - one of which must be worship [deity] > #3 - must meet skill requirements: > - [cult] lore 50% > - any 3 other cult skills 50% > - ceremony 50% > - summon 50% > - enchant 50% > #4 - must have a minimum POW of 15 > > > To ascend to High Priesthood, the character must meet these requirements: > #1 - Priest in good standing > (some number of years, depending on cult) > #2 - must have these spells as a minimum: > - one point of divination > - one point of excommunicate > - one point of initiate > - one point of sanctify > - one point of spellteaching > - one point of worship [deity] > #3 must meet skill requirements: > - [cult] lore 90% > - one of ceremony, summon, or enchant at 90% > #4 must have a minimum POW of 17 to apply RQ2 said that High Priests had to have 15 points of resuable rune magic, not a problem with the RQ3 10 points of magic, but probably worth keeping. They had to have Divination 5 as well, not as important using Runepower becasue you could cast Divination 5 times, but a good POW limiter. They also had to have 3 cult Knowledge skills at 90%, som maybe the skill requirement should be "3 skills at 90% from [Cult] Lore, Ceremony, Summon, Enchant, Cult Knowledge skills. Reading through the RQ2 rules again, I really liked the idea of being able to bribe your way up the cult, by including the cash value of presents given in the calculation for the acceptance roll. > Thanks for kicking this around. Still getting used to RQ3's strange > deviations from RQ2's rules. Anyone know where I can find info on > Acolytes? RQ3 Magic Book (From the Deluxe Edition). Also, how do people use Runepower with one-use spells? I can't remember seeing in anywhere. Do you sacrifice for the spell, then keep it when you cast it but lose the number of Runepower points? Does it cost POW each time toy cast it (as in a one-use matrix)? Simon ________________________________________________________________________ Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo! Messenger http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/ From soltakss at yahoo.com Thu Jul 10 23:27:29 2003 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (=?iso-8859-1?q?Simon=20Phipp?=) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 14:27:29 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Runepower, Sustainable Broo Groups and All PCs are Evil, Nasty stackable spells In-Reply-To: <20030709135303.869D44C4B1@thinbits.com> Message-ID: <20030710132729.12889.qmail@web9608.mail.yahoo.com> Ashley: > Simon dished out three lists: > > "Nasty stackable offensive spells: Lightning, Crush, Slash, Chomping, > Create Fissure, Shake Earth, Earthwarm, Firespear, Swallow, Venom Boosting" > > "Nasty Non-stackable spells that I wouldn't want too often: Vomit Acid, > Sweat Acid, Strike, Fear, Madness, Fang of Wachaza, Sever Spirit, > Mindblast" > > "Stackable Defensive spells that become unworkable when stacked too high > too easy: Shield, Shield of Darkness, Reflection" > > All the non-stackable spells are fairly easily blocked - you should see the > ammount of Shield 3 through 6 spells that get cast the minute someone > thinks Sever Spirit could come into play. It's almost like a reflex action. > High levels of countermagic tend to get piled on as well. > > As for the stackable spells and taking crush as an example... One point of > shield mostly removes the effects of Crush. As soon as someone sees the > crush spell go on, it's whap on the Shield or Protection (or, whip up a > large Dismiss or Dispel Magic). Yes, but the whole point is about game balance. Using the original way of using Runepower, an NPC could cast an unreasonable amount of Crush, or could cast a Dispel Magic 10 to knock down spells or whatever, just by sacrificing to a RunePower pool. Imagine a scenario where a group of Rune Priests is attacking a temple. There are a number of encounters with a number of Priests or acolytes. From soltakss at yahoo.com Thu Jul 10 23:44:35 2003 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (=?iso-8859-1?q?Simon=20Phipp?=) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 14:44:35 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Runepower In-Reply-To: <20030710134102.9F0904C4A9@thinbits.com> Message-ID: <20030710134435.67043.qmail@web9601.mail.yahoo.com> Ashley: > When you say "...benefits the player..." it almost seems like you regard > things as a competition between the players and the GM - which I hope you > don't. That would be silly as the GM almost always wins. Even when he doesn't, he can sulk for a couple of days and then come back with a really nasty scenario to teach them a lesson. No contest, really. (Anyone remember the cult of B'Stard Ge'em from Pavic Tales?) > "It's your game, do what you want > with it, but if you don't play it my way YOUR PLAYERS WILL DESERT IN > DROVES, THE OCEANS WILL DRY UP AND IT WILL BE THE END OF LIFE AS WE KNOW > IT!!!" So that's what happened? Damn! > One thing to remember in all these discussions: Game balance in RPGS is a > myth - you want "game balance" go and play something you can't make up > scenarios for and can actually win. My favourite ruse as a GM - "Well, you can do that, no problem, but the NPCs might come up with the same tactic next time". That's what keeps game balance. > Anyone going to Scotscon lurking about on this list? Should be, hopefully. > The reason I ask is that if there's enough people on this list attending we > could perhaps set up a luddite's session of RQ. That'd be good, otherwise I'll be playing that new-fangled HeroWars thingy. Leon: > 1. RunePower attempts to increase flexibility (A character can now choose a > spell from all spells available from the cult, on the fly as opposed to > having to sacrificing for some spell and only be able to cast these > spells.) The amended version fixes this quite nicely. > 2. GM does not really need such flexibility (Since most NPC do not have a > long life span and the GM has an idea of what is to come, therefore knowing > which spells will be useful.) > > 3. RunePower fails on the flexibility issue since GM must limit it in order > to maintain game balance. This forces GMs to be reasonable all the time. Very tiresome if you ask me. Simon ________________________________________________________________________ Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo! Messenger http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/ From LKirshtein at howost.com Thu Jul 10 23:49:05 2003 From: LKirshtein at howost.com (Kirshtein, Leon) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 09:49:05 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Runepower, Sustainable Broo Groups and All PCs are Evil, Nasty stackable spells Message-ID: <3156D872DCD0D411AF85000102C00AE60E7F3C12@hosntexch01.howost.strykercorp.com> Simon wrote: >I always liked the combination of Second Mouth and Swallow. Virtually undetectable until the last minute when it is all too late. Also, the victim's mind will probably be on other things than checking for assassination attempts. Since we are on the topic, throw in Erocotuslucidity (sorry about the spelling do not have books with me) on top of those two and now you can really enjoy eating (with) your enemies :) There are a lot more things which immediately come to mind, but most of them should never be put down on paper (email), especially when at work ;) Leon Kirshtein From aescleal at btinternet.com Fri Jul 11 00:02:06 2003 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (aescleal at btinternet.com) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:02:06 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Runepower, Sustainable Broo Groups and All PCs are Evil, Nasty stackable spells Message-ID: <1776204.1057845726729.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Simon trots out the tired and pointless old mantra: "Yes, but the whole point is about game balance." There is no such as game balance in RPGs - if a GM wants to liquidate a party, he damned well can. Arguing about "balance" in RPGs implies that: (a) RPGS are fair contests; (b) You can win. To whit: (a) They're not contests (which means that G in RPG is a bit of a misnomer) and (b) you can't. Cheers, Ash From grogthing at yahoo.com Fri Jul 11 01:46:42 2003 From: grogthing at yahoo.com (grogthing) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 08:46:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Runepower, Sustainable Broo Groups and All PCs are Evil, Nasty stackable spells In-Reply-To: <1776204.1057845726729.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <20030710154642.22277.qmail@web41503.mail.yahoo.com> That's one perspective, and one way to play. But not universal, so your sweeping generalization is flawed. RPGs are games. And they have rules. Some rules systems puts more power in the GM hands than others. But really GM power is determined by group consesus. I played in a group for several years, where GMing duties rotated on a bi-weekly basis between each of us playing (6 of us). And it was one continous campaign with the same characters. So since we each had a character involved, and we each GMed, we used used the rule system as an objective arbiter. We also added home-rules regaurding how much affect a GM could have overall on the world, without group consensus. What we did was split the world into regions, and each GM was in charge of the NPC events organizations and activities within their assigned region. And we all were in competition with each other, as our characters were feudal warlords competing for rescources and territory. We each started of with a small population under our control, and one town sized home base. It was fun. But the "GM is god" thing was not in affect in this campaign. It was a fair contest. And eventually there was a winner. ;) Greg --- aescleal at btinternet.com wrote: > Simon trots out the tired and pointless old mantra: > > "Yes, but the whole point is about game balance." > > There is no such as game balance in RPGs - if a GM > wants to liquidate a party, he damned well can. > Arguing about "balance" in RPGs implies that: > > (a) RPGS are fair contests; > (b) You can win. > > To whit: (a) They're not contests (which means that > G in RPG is a bit of a misnomer) and (b) you can't. > > Cheers, > > Ash > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com From aescleal at btinternet.com Fri Jul 11 02:16:57 2003 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (aescleal at btinternet.com) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 17:16:57 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] The Nature Of RPGs (was something else...) Message-ID: <4373701.1057853817186.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> "RPGs are games." No they're not. Games by definition have an element of competition, RPGs can't have if they're going to work. The GM isn't a traditional, impartial referee in an RPG - he's an active, living part of the whole experience. "Some rules systems puts more power in the GM hands than others." The GM has the ultimate "power" (strange use of words, may I suggest "flexibility" as what you were trying to say?) in any RPG. What he says goes and the players have sod all sanction* against him or her (it's a bit like playing golf with God). Your example of GMing by committee doesn't change that one bit. All you did was change things from an RPG to something with a set of victory conditions. Sounds like you might as well have played Diplomacy (which isn't a dig at Diplomacy BTW, it's a bloody good game). Cheers, Ash *Apart from the ultimate one of not continuing with the group, which I'm sure most of us have used at one time or another. > from: grogthing > date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 16:46:42 > to: rq-rules at crashbox.com > subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Re: Runepower, Sustainable Broo Groups and All PCs are Evil, Nasty stackable spells > > That's one perspective, and one way to play. > > But not universal, so your sweeping generalization is > flawed. > > RPGs are games. And they have rules. Some rules > systems puts more power in the GM hands than others. > > But really GM power is determined by group consesus. > > I played in a group for several years, where GMing > duties rotated on a bi-weekly basis between each of us > playing (6 of us). And it was one continous campaign > with the same characters. > > So since we each had a character involved, and we each > GMed, we used used the rule system as an objective > arbiter. We also added home-rules regaurding how much > affect a GM could have overall on the world, without > group consensus. > > What we did was split the world into regions, and each > GM was in charge of the NPC events organizations and > activities within their assigned region. > > And we all were in competition with each other, as our > characters were feudal warlords competing for > rescources and territory. > > We each started of with a small population under our > control, and one town sized home base. > > It was fun. But the "GM is god" thing was not in > affect in this campaign. > > It was a fair contest. > > And eventually there was a winner. ;) > > Greg > From DevinC at aol.com Fri Jul 11 04:33:09 2003 From: DevinC at aol.com (DevinC at aol.com) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 14:33:09 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] The Nature Of RPGs (was something else...) Message-ID: <3886546E.57B2A3F7.00047AF1@aol.com> In a message dated 7/10/2003 11:16:57 AM Eastern Standard Time, aescleal at btinternet.com writes: > No they're not. Games by definition have an element of competition, RPGs can't have if they're going to work. The GM isn't a traditional, impartial referee in an RPG - he's an > active, living part of the whole experience. Sorry, but there is no required element of competition to define the term game. The first entry in www.dictionary.com for "game" is: An activity providing entertainment or amusement; a pastime: party games; word games. Solitaire is a game. With whom are you competing? RPGs are games. The G stands for game. Devin From lepus at anthrobunny.com Fri Jul 11 04:30:56 2003 From: lepus at anthrobunny.com (lepus at anthrobunny.com) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 11:30:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] The Nature Of RPGs (was something else...) In-Reply-To: <3886546E.57B2A3F7.00047AF1@aol.com> Message-ID: Role-playing games are games because they have rules structures for resolving tasks, interactions between 'units', and "No you didn't/Yes I did" differences. You can role-play without a game, and you can play a game without role-playing, but if you have both, you're doing both. -- "It's great to be known, but it's even better to be known as strange." - Chairman Takeshi Kaga From alan.richards75 at ntlworld.com Fri Jul 11 06:29:45 2003 From: alan.richards75 at ntlworld.com (Alan Richards) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 21:29:45 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: RQ-Rules digest, Vol 1 #178 - 12 msgs In-Reply-To: <20030710134102.9F0904C4A9@thinbits.com> Message-ID: <3E7FE342-B315-11D7-B4D2-000A277B64F4@ntlworld.com> Tom Cantin wrote : > >> To progress to High Priest >> >> The Priest must have used Excommunicate (possibly supervised by a high >> priest) before applying. > > ...this I question. It seems to me that Excommunicate is the > sort > of spell you don't want to have to cast at all, and if you look at two > candidates applying for high priesthood, one who's excommunicated > members > would be a less attractive prospect than one who hasn't had to do so. > Yet > clearly, a priest cannot be a proper priest if he's unprepared to do it > when necessary. > Better just to make learning Excommunicate a fundamental part > of > the ordination process for becoming a priest. > > Yes. (and no) I like Runepower (and am going to keep it). I also like the idea of candidates for cult rank having to have certain Rune magic. My compromise/bodge/ ill thought-out post was that candidates had to have used the requisite magic before assessment. It would seem that I went a step too far. I don't think that Excommunicate will need to have been used before promotion to High Priest. However I can't honestly remember ever having had a High Priest in any of my games (as Player or GM) so maybe that's not something I am going to worry about. Ash wrote: > > I don't understand this comment... Maybe there was something in the > reply to Alan (who seems to have overly mechanised the whole process > somewhat). When you say "...benefits the player..." it almost seems > like you regard things as a competition between the players and the GM > - which I hope you don't. > > Guilty. I first posted my comments on a version of Runepower I used. Then people (quite rightly) chucked up ideas which I responded to as rules responses. Whether I would actually use of all of these rules I don't know. (But of thinking required). I guess I have fallen into a bizarre trap of defending my rule with other rules. (A bit of playtesting required). A couple of people (sorry too lazy to selectively quote everything I respond to) thought that Runepower unbalances NPCs. I just don't get that. In my view the GMs role is to ensure everyone (self included) has fun. Allowing NPCs to throw all of their Runepower into 1 last ditch spell for very NPC with Runepower seems to me the same as any other abuse of GM power. I try to avoid it, and honestly anyone who's campaign I have played in has avoided it, or at the very worst made amends afterwards. From gerall at chromebob.com Fri Jul 11 09:19:02 2003 From: gerall at chromebob.com (Gerall Kahla) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 18:19:02 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Acolyte rules seem missing -- Message-ID: <3F0DF466.1090003@chromebob.com> Hello all, I've looked in the RQ3 Magic Book (or, more specifically, the Magic Book chapter of my RuneQuest Deluxe Edition softback), and I can't find any references to Acolytes. On page 19 of the Cults Book from Gods of Glorantha, there's mention of Acolyte requirements, but no real description of what it *is*... Does this bound printing of the RQ3 rules skip the Acolyte altogether? The Divine Magic section of the Magic Book goes straight from Initiate to Priest in it's descriptions. Curious. My boxed set of RQ3 is exceptionally well stored, and all I've got access to right now is my single book. Could someone tell me which page of the Magic Book has the Acolyte stuff on it? Many thanks -- -- G. Kahla - he who codes From jgould at io.com Fri Jul 11 09:23:56 2003 From: jgould at io.com (Jim Gould) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 18:23:56 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Acolyte rules seem missing -- In-Reply-To: <3F0DF466.1090003@chromebob.com> Message-ID: > Hello all, > > I've looked in the RQ3 Magic Book (or, more specifically, the Magic > Book chapter of my RuneQuest Deluxe Edition softback), and I can't > find any references to Acolytes. Try page 16 of the Glorantha book (book #5, or chapter 5 in the softback). Apparently acolytes and Rune Lords didn't fit in the Alternate Earth thing. Page number is from the multi-book set, but should get you in the area. "Dammit" Jim Gould jgould at io.com From paul.s.sommer at get2net.dk Fri Jul 11 04:26:08 2003 From: paul.s.sommer at get2net.dk (paul Sommer) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 20:26:08 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: acolytes and do we need them References: <20030707184804.070DA4C4AB@thinbits.com> Message-ID: <3F0DAFC0.D054577D@get2net.dk> Talking aabout acolytes :i find it very very silly that some cults have them and others don't. Giving the choice of being a low level intiate or a incredibly powerful runelord /priest. In my game ALL cults have acolytes as its gives some divine magic benfits and also give the players something to aim for for as a middle line .Nothing worse than dying just before you almost fufil the rune lord requirements. As for titles for acolytes of cults that do not have acolytes we came up with a few ideas storm Bull khan - storm bull healer-chalana arroy Dagger-humakt Storm guard -orlanth light servant-Yelmalio Hunter-hunter gods lips of krarsht-krarsht Khan son-waha guardian of pavis-pavis sun rising-yelm any other ideas? ciao paul sommer > > > I don't have my rule books with me. But I always thought it was 50% for > priests. > > >>"Even in this case becoming an acolyte should be much easier." > >Nah, should be the other way 'round... I'm hopefully not being deliberately > contrary here, but they seem to be some sort of half way house thing to > allow RQII style associate priests in RQIII. (Not to mention the surprise > Rune Lord-Acolyte thing that turned up first in "Sun County.") > > So how could a "half way house" thing be more difficult to get into then > priesthood? I have always looked at acolytes as a very senior initiates who > may fill in on if no priest is available or until such time there is an > opening for a priest. Note what not all cults have acolytes, so the Rune > Lord-Acolyte combo is rather unusual, but common for adventures since it is > one of the things they look for. > Leon Kirshtein > > - From jurrubin at earthlink.net Fri Jul 11 10:11:18 2003 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (D. Smart) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 19:11:18 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Hallucinate References: <3156D872DCD0D411AF85000102C00AE60E7F3BFD@hosntexch01.howost.strykercorp.com> <3F0C99F0.2070801@chromebob.com> Message-ID: <3F0E00A6.6050606@earthlink.net> Better yet, Hallucinate them into being treasure or whatever you want. Which is a great way to ruin a campaign. David Smart Gerall Kahla wrote: > I can agree with your assessment of Hallucinate being too powerful as > RunePower, if it's allowed to edit away portions of the local reality > that the caster doesn't like. Hell, only Tricksters get that stuff > anyway. Why not edit off the opponent's legs and arms and give them > large, purple-spotted noses instead of their weapon? You could make > off with the treasure afterwards. > > Pax -- > From gerall at chromebob.com Fri Jul 11 10:30:01 2003 From: gerall at chromebob.com (Gerall Kahla) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 19:30:01 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Acolyte rules seem missing -- In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3F0E0509.7080603@chromebob.com> Jim Gould wrote: [snip] > Try page 16 of the Glorantha book (book #5, or chapter 5 in the softback). > Apparently acolytes and Rune Lords didn't fit in the Alternate Earth thing. > > Page number is from the multi-book set, but should get you in the area. That got it! Thanks for the pointer... Reading over it, Acolytes seem to be Priests in waiting. (Waiting for the other Priests to get whacked so they can collect those tithes!) I can easily see where PCs are intended to play Acolytes while the Priests are NPC types. Acolytes only spend 10% of their time working for the cult! Woo-h000!! Pass the antidotes and strap on the armor!! Ahem... Sorry about that. Having a stessful day, and reading these rules has probably been the highlight. Best regards -- -- G. Kahla - he who codes From leonbk at yahoo.com Fri Jul 11 12:10:38 2003 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 19:10:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Hallucinate In-Reply-To: <3F0E00A6.6050606@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <20030711021038.26867.qmail@web41111.mail.yahoo.com> --- "D. Smart" wrote: > Better yet, Hallucinate them into being treasure or > whatever you want. > Which is a great way to ruin a campaign. > > David Smart Not possible. The spell will only effect the caster. ===== Leon Kirshtein www.godlearner.d2g.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com From leonbk at yahoo.com Fri Jul 11 12:18:50 2003 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 19:18:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Acolyte rules seem missing -- In-Reply-To: <3F0E0509.7080603@chromebob.com> Message-ID: <20030711021850.27770.qmail@web41111.mail.yahoo.com> --- Gerall Kahla wrote: > > Try page 16 of the Glorantha book (book #5, or > chapter 5 in the softback). I prefer Pages 18-20 of the Cults Book for a better write up. > Reading over it, Acolytes seem to be Priests in > waiting. (Waiting for > the other Priests to get whacked so they can collect > those tithes!) Retired Priest and Rune Lords become Acolytes as well. (Granted that is not likely ending for a player character.) > I can easily see where PCs are intended to play > Acolytes while the > Priests are NPC types. Acolytes only spend 10% of > their time working > for the cult! Woo-h000!! Pass the antidotes and > strap on the armor!! 50% according to the Cults Book, but still better than the 90% for priests and Rune Lords. As a house rule we make it: Initiate 10% Acolyte 30% Priest 50% Rune Lord 90% Unless the cult description specifically says differently. I am not sure if every cult should have Acolytes. Does anybody have a good reason as to why not? ===== Leon Kirshtein www.godlearner.d2g.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com From aelarsen at mac.com Fri Jul 11 14:51:39 2003 From: aelarsen at mac.com (Andrew Larsen) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 23:51:39 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Hello! Message-ID: Hi. I've just signed on to the list, although I've been playing RQ since the early 80s. After watching the list for a few days, I'm curious what percentage of the list plays RQ in Glorantha and what percentage plays in other game-world settings? As for unintended uses for rune magic, my favorite idea was as a way to get rid of the Crimson Bat. Have a bunch of Eurmali sacrifice for 150 pts of Swallow and then just eat the damn thing. Andrew E. Larsen From blacklocks at telus.net Fri Jul 11 15:58:59 2003 From: blacklocks at telus.net (The Blacklocks) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 21:58:59 -0800 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Hello! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I have never used Glorantha. Never could understand it. Used Mystara, Greyhawk, and my own home grown worlds. Northern DM _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From aescleal at btinternet.com Fri Jul 11 17:21:22 2003 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (aescleal at btinternet.com) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 08:21:22 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: acolytes and do we need them Message-ID: <3529362.1057908082890.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> "As for titles for acolytes of cults that do not have acolytes we came up with a few ideas:" I thought Yelmalio already had acolytes - at least most of the Light Sons in Sun County were combo RuneLord/Acolytes? If you want to play the game straight I thought that any cult that had priests had acolytes as well... could be wrong though. Cheers, Ash > from: paul Sommer > date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 19:26:08 > to: rq-rules at crashbox.com > subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Re: acolytes and do we need them > > Talking aabout acolytes :i find it very very silly that some cults have them and others don't. > Giving the choice of being a low level intiate or a incredibly powerful runelord /priest. > > In my game ALL cults have acolytes as its gives some divine magic benfits and also give the players something to aim for for as a middle line .Nothing worse than dying just before you almost fufil the rune lord requirements. > > As for titles for acolytes of cults that do not have acolytes we came up with a few ideas > > storm Bull khan - storm bull > healer-chalana arroy > Dagger-humakt > Storm guard -orlanth > light servant-Yelmalio > Hunter-hunter gods > lips of krarsht-krarsht > Khan son-waha > guardian of pavis-pavis > sun rising-yelm > > any other ideas? > > ciao > paul sommer > > > > > > > > > > I don't have my rule books with me. But I always thought it was 50% for > > priests. > > > > >>"Even in this case becoming an acolyte should be much easier." > > >Nah, should be the other way 'round... I'm hopefully not being deliberately > > contrary here, but they seem to be some sort of half way house thing to > > allow RQII style associate priests in RQIII. (Not to mention the surprise > > Rune Lord-Acolyte thing that turned up first in "Sun County.") > > > > So how could a "half way house" thing be more difficult to get into then > > priesthood? I have always looked at acolytes as a very senior initiates who > > may fill in on if no priest is available or until such time there is an > > opening for a priest. Note what not all cults have acolytes, so the Rune > > Lord-Acolyte combo is rather unusual, but common for adventures since it is > > one of the things they look for. > > > Leon Kirshtein > > > > - > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From aescleal at btinternet.com Fri Jul 11 17:24:35 2003 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (aescleal at btinternet.com) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 08:24:35 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] The Nature Of RPGs (was something else...) Message-ID: <4441042.1057908275141.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Rules don't make a game a game - it's the element of competition. Maybe my dictionary's wrong though. Cheers, Ash > from: lepus at anthrobunny.com > date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 19:30:56 > to: rq-rules at crashbox.com > subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] The Nature Of RPGs (was something else...) > > Role-playing games are games because they have rules structures for > resolving tasks, interactions between 'units', and "No you didn't/Yes I > did" differences. > > You can role-play without a game, and you can play a game without > role-playing, but if you have both, you're doing both. > > -- > "It's great to be known, but it's even > better to be known as strange." > - Chairman Takeshi Kaga > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From aescleal at btinternet.com Fri Jul 11 17:26:44 2003 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (aescleal at btinternet.com) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 08:26:44 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] The Nature Of RPGs (was something else...) Message-ID: <7314553.1057908404311.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> From aescleal at btinternet.com Fri Jul 11 17:30:31 2003 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (aescleal at btinternet.com) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 08:30:31 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Acolyte rules seem missing -- Message-ID: <987536.1057908631957.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> I'm not convinced that acolytes were in the AH rules either. They might be mentioned in the Glorantha section but I'm not sure. They were definately described in Gods of Glorantha as the "new" name for associate priests. Cheers, Ash > from: Gerall Kahla > date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 00:19:02 > to: rq-rules at crashbox.com > subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Acolyte rules seem missing -- > > Hello all, > > I've looked in the RQ3 Magic Book (or, more specifically, the Magic > Book chapter of my RuneQuest Deluxe Edition softback), and I can't > find any references to Acolytes. > > On page 19 of the Cults Book from Gods of Glorantha, there's mention > of Acolyte requirements, but no real description of what it *is*... > > Does this bound printing of the RQ3 rules skip the Acolyte altogether? > The Divine Magic section of the Magic Book goes straight from > Initiate to Priest in it's descriptions. > > Curious. > > My boxed set of RQ3 is exceptionally well stored, and all I've got > access to right now is my single book. Could someone tell me which > page of the Magic Book has the Acolyte stuff on it? > > Many thanks -- > > -- > G. Kahla - he who codes > > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From tiberius at runequest.za.org Fri Jul 11 17:30:16 2003 From: tiberius at runequest.za.org (tiberius at runequest.za.org) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 09:30:16 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Magazine Articles Message-ID: <17380.196.8.104.31.1057908616.squirrel@mail.wack.co.za> Meints wrote: I have a listing of RQ/Gloranthan articles on my website. I don't include listings for adverts, but I have a few issues on my list that aren't on yours. Here's the link: http://www.glorantha.info/othermags/othermags.html Excellent, thanks, now I know what Dragons to keep an eye open for. Tony From aescleal at btinternet.com Fri Jul 11 17:32:56 2003 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (aescleal at btinternet.com) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 08:32:56 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Hallucinate Message-ID: <4410405.1057908776522.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> That sounds fairly typical of a trickster - hanging onto some bugger screaming "My treasure's running away - help me someone!" Cheers, Ash > from: Leon Kirshtein > date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 03:10:38 > to: rq-rules at crashbox.com > subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Hallucinate > > --- "D. Smart" wrote: > > Better yet, Hallucinate them into being treasure or > > whatever you want. > > Which is a great way to ruin a campaign. > > > > David Smart > > Not possible. The spell will only effect the caster. > > ===== > Leon Kirshtein > www.godlearner.d2g.com > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! > http://sbc.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From aescleal at btinternet.com Fri Jul 11 17:38:45 2003 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (aescleal at btinternet.com) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 08:38:45 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Hello! Message-ID: <2903269.1057909125845.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> I do a bit of both - mostly Glorantha though. I love the idea of swallowing the Crimson Bat - the only problem being that to practise they swallowed the Cheiftain's Stead, Old Snorri's herd and 37 assorted charms and fetishes. The trickster is now hanging upside down having his back slapped by the irate God Talker screaming "Cough them up you bastard!" Cheers, Ash > from: Andrew Larsen > date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 05:51:39 > to: rq-rules at crashbox.com > subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Hello! > > Hi. I've just signed on to the list, although I've been playing RQ since > the early 80s. After watching the list for a few days, I'm curious what > percentage of the list plays RQ in Glorantha and what percentage plays in > other game-world settings? > As for unintended uses for rune magic, my favorite idea was as a way to > get rid of the Crimson Bat. Have a bunch of Eurmali sacrifice for 150 pts > of Swallow and then just eat the damn thing. > > Andrew E. Larsen > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From trevor.ellis at pobox.com Fri Jul 11 18:53:46 2003 From: trevor.ellis at pobox.com (Trevor Ellis) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 09:53:46 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Sustainable Broo Groups References: <1776204.1057845726729.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <004e01c3478a$0f5762f0$0200000a@trevorellis> > Ash > > Simon trots out the tired and pointless old mantra: "Yes, but the whole point is about game balance." > > There is no such as game balance in RPGs - if a GM wants to liquidate a party, he damned well can. > The 'mantra' about balance does not refer to the Party, or even small groups of NPC, but to the world as a whole. If the GM presents a world to which no-one else has a basic frame of reference, or which they can not conceive working, how can the players run character's that interact with that world? It's like taking a blind person from a rain forest tribe, dumping them in a traditional Inuit community, and asking them to play a full role in that society. From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Fri Jul 11 19:02:01 2003 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 10:02:01 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Hallucinate Message-ID: >>--- "D. Smart" wrote: >> Better yet, Hallucinate them into being treasure or >> whatever you want. >> Which is a great way to ruin a campaign. >> >> David Smart > >Not possible. The spell will only effect the caster. > >===== >Leon Kirshtein >www.godlearner.d2g.com Now perhaps it's the fact that I never ran in Glorantha (well, never ran there post ~1981 anyway), but I don't recall ever encountering problems with Hallucinate until this thread, so I looked it up in the RQIII description in Gods of Glorantha last night and I am baffled as to the fuss: The Illusions are only perceptable to the caster! It's utterly useless as an offensive spell (unless the caster is mindlinked to the target) and frankly apart from giving the Trickster particularly OTT acid-trips (which is entirely appropriate of course) it's pretty pointless for the caster - since no-one else is affected, the caster might well be able to hallucinate (alter 'his' reality) so he's got Iron plate but when the spell ends, the reality everyone else (including the Troll with the lead maul...) perceives will re-assert itself and the Trickster will suddenly be an icky mess on the floor IMO. Now part of the problem it seems to me is that Hallucinate specifically states that the illusions created are _only_ perceptible to the caster (and those mid-linked to him), whereas standard RQIII illusions are holodeck matter without the safety interlocks: for the duration of the spell, they are part of objective reality - none of this disbelieving nonsense. Hallucinate looks like one of those spells that within the 'spirit of the game' is fine but is poorly worded'. Personally, if a player tried to use Hallucinate to pull a sub-Neo reality edit in my game, I'd tell him to stop power-gaming. If, on the other hand, he invited the other characters to join him in a mindlink and then Hallucinated a conversation with, say the Bad guys dead mother, I'd let him have one or two nuggets of good information... although she might get an amorous fixation on him which could have consequences! He could do it on his own, but I think it would be fun if he got the others to try and have the serious conversation whilst he was IMO The point about all magic, but especially Trickster magic is that in _most_ settings# it is _not_ a science and technology substitute, it is part of a _fundementally_ different relationship with the universe - it does not (and should not IMO) be clinically rational and reducible to dry predictable formulae and produce monotonously repeatable, reproducible results (unless that's the setting you want of course...). For the sake of a good game (and please let's not debate the minutiae of what that means!) any RPG magic system should obviously have some degree of consistency and coherence, but both players and GM's should be prepared to let common sense ("fun for all","it's only a game") and sense of wonder ("it's a fantasy","That's not a hill, it's a bl**dy turtle!") control the limits of magic system; or any other aspect of the rules. It must also be said that the more intricate interactions of high powered/obscure Rune Spells and such is one of the reasons why I tended to prefer lower power RQ games - for epic high-powered games something a lot looser and less intricately specified (original Stormbringer springs to mind) I find much more to my taste... Each to their own I suppose! Cheers, Nick Middleton # Certainly Glorantha, but also most other fantasy worlds I have played or read, the world of China Mieveille's Perdido Street Station/The Scar being one notable exception. From aescleal at btinternet.com Fri Jul 11 22:41:33 2003 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (aescleal at btinternet.com) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 13:41:33 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Sustainable Broo Groups Message-ID: <8106774.1057927293651.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Trevor E replies to my dismissal of "balance" in RPGs: "If the GM presents a world to which no-one else has a basic frame of reference, or which they can not conceive working, how can the players run character's that interact with that world?" Creating a sense of reality in a game world has nothing to do with "Game Balance." "Game Balance" says that all 1st level spells are equivalent, all feats with the same number of prerequisistes are identical in "power" and that Bards suck as a first level bard / nth level rogue multiclass can do almost everything a (n 1)st level bard can. Sorry about taking the piss out of the "Game Balance" nutters that hang 'round the DnD camp on this planet, but as soon as you start talking about "Game Balance" you're defining how my world or my interpretation of my world works - to mandate (in rather Gygaxian terms) how things should work. In short (too late!) "Game Balance" won't help a Chilean Native Ray Charles catch Right Whales in a canoe any more than I'd personally survive more than 10 minutes on the plains of Prax. Likewise, it isn't going to help new players learn how to interact with a game world they've never seen before. Cheers, Ash PS: After that lot maybe I should become a Vampyre: The Masquerade Player. "Oh woe is me, I am all powerful and immortal! But the angst - do you foolish mortals know what it's like to be 400 years old with the emotional maturity of a teenager? I shall maintain my humanity by listening to NiN and refusing to tidy my crypt." > from: Trevor Ellis > date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 09:53:46 > to: rq-rules at crashbox.com > subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Re: Sustainable Broo Groups > > > Ash > > > > Simon trots out the tired and pointless old mantra: "Yes, but the whole point is about game balance." > > > > There is no such as game balance in RPGs - if a GM wants to liquidate a party, he damned well can. > > > > The 'mantra' about balance does not refer to the Party, or even small groups of NPC, but to the world as a whole. If the GM presents a world to which no-one else has a basic frame of reference, or which they can not conceive working, how can the players run character's that interact with that world? It's like taking a blind person from a rain forest tribe, dumping them in a traditional Inuit community, and asking them to play a full role in that society. > > >From the small items (how do I address a tribal leader) to the larger items (why do Broos have no blacksmiths yet always have full sets of plate armour) there must be an OVERALL consistency and sustainability to the world that the players can understand. Small pockets of un-logic can (and should) exist. > > Occasionally every GM must have failed to fully paint some aspect of the background story and get the question, "I do not understand the options in this situation but I feel that my character would have such knowledge. Please explain my character's thoughts on this issue.". To get this question all the time, before every action simply removes the RP from RPG. > > The only exception to all the above is the dungeon hack, where the gameplay does not relate to the world in any way ,and where no rational is required as to why Trolls, Kobolds, and Green Slime all live in adjoining rooms with no visible means of support. There was a time when I quite enjoyed that type of game and so I will not criticise those who wish to play it. > > > Trevor Ellis > > > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- > multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html > --- > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From lepus at anthrobunny.com Fri Jul 11 22:59:38 2003 From: lepus at anthrobunny.com (lepus at anthrobunny.com) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 05:59:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] The Nature Of RPGs (was something else...) In-Reply-To: <4441042.1057908275141.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 aescleal at btinternet.com wrote: > Rules don't make a game a game - it's the element of competition. Maybe my dictionary's wrong though. Is Reiner Knizia's "Lord of the Rings" a game? It certainly seems to be. It has been every time I've played it. And yet there is no competition. But how can this be? -- "It's great to be known, but it's even better to be known as strange." - Chairman Takeshi Kaga From talmeta at talmeta.net Fri Jul 11 23:08:27 2003 From: talmeta at talmeta.net (Tal Meta) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 09:08:27 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Hello! References: <2903269.1057909125845.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <3F0EB6CB.80008@talmeta.net> I've used both greyhawk and a homebrew campaign world for RQ, though as of my last map revision, I've dropped a weirdly skewed version of Genertela onto the southwest corner of the continent of Oerik.... Nobody has gone there yet, though. -- talmeta at talmeta.net - Heretic, Dilettante, & God-Machine AIM - talmeta ICQ - 12594453 Homepage - I think animal testing is a terrible idea; they get all nervous and give the wrong answers. -- A Bit of Fry and Laurie From LKirshtein at howost.com Fri Jul 11 23:50:53 2003 From: LKirshtein at howost.com (Kirshtein, Leon) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 09:50:53 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Hello! Message-ID: <3156D872DCD0D411AF85000102C00AE60E7F3C19@hosntexch01.howost.strykercorp.com> Andrew wrote: >Hi. I've just signed on to the list, although I've been playing RQ since the early 80s. After watching the list for a few days, I'm curious what percentage of the list plays RQ in Glorantha and what percentage plays in other game-world settings? I am currently running a Gloranthan campaign, but previously I have done the following: Gateway (Gloranthan cults, but not in Glorantha) Alternate Earth (Atlantis, Aztec, Egypt) Glorantha/Crossover (characters start in Glorantha and visit various placed namely Young Kingdoms, Birthright, Dragonlance, Mystra, Warhammer, Middle Earth) My favorite so far has been a campaign which started as Gloranthan (Light cults), then jumped to several worlds and brought back worship of a new Egyptian god (assumed a joint form with Yorocius to become Yorocius Seeker) as well as a new race of beings called the Hutakies (I stole this from Mystra, I think) back to Glorantha, then to Egypt where the party was subverted to the worship of Set during the quest. >As for unintended uses for rune magic, my favorite idea was as a way to get rid of the Crimson Bat. Have a bunch of Eurmali sacrifice for 150 pts of Swallow and then just eat the damn thing. I like it. I have heard about one campaign, with my original RQ GM, where the Crimson Bat was killed by a group of characters who managed to bring back the head of The Medusa (of course the Kraken is still in business in that universe. .... Hmmm would you consider those characters evil?) Leon Kirshtein From jgould at io.com Sat Jul 12 00:20:29 2003 From: jgould at io.com (Jim Gould) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 09:20:29 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Hello! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.1.20030711091824.039b73f0@webmail.io.com> At 11:51 PM 7/10/2003 -0500, you wrote: >Hi. I've just signed on to the list, although I've been playing RQ since >the early 80s. After watching the list for a few days, I'm curious what >percentage of the list plays RQ in Glorantha and what percentage plays in >other game-world settings? All three of my campaigns have been in Glorantha. I very much like the world (as interpreted by me) and I like how the RQ/BRP rules complement that vision. -- "Dammit" Jim Gould jgould at io.com http://www.io.com/~jgould http://www.britanniamanor.org Almost Universally Applicable Warning Label: Do not insert product in butt and strike with hammer. - Badger From trevor.ellis at pobox.com Sat Jul 12 00:22:21 2003 From: trevor.ellis at pobox.com (Trevor Ellis) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 15:22:21 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Sustainable Broo Groups References: <8106774.1057927293651.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <002201c347b7$f536ea70$0200000a@trevorellis> I think you are concentrating on the word 'Balance', and wrongly equating it with Equality. When in fact what we were talking about with the Broo question was sustainability. Describe Broos as a social species that freely decimates their young and I wonder whether in 50 years there will be any Broo left. The slightest stress on their numbers (bad winter, group of Scorpionmen move in next door...) will see them extinct. Describe Broo as a species that can and does, easily and freely, breed with any living creature and I wonder how come in 50 years that the world is not completely over run by Broo. - Who out there could generate sufficient attrition to keep the Broo numbers down, and match their reproduction rates? Not likely to be someone who is competing for the same food sources - spend all your time fighting and you die of starvation, spend your time eating and the Broo overwhelm you with numbers. Also remember that they need one host animal to die for each young born. Were you tell me in your world that two cults dominated an area, Cult A with 40% of the population and Cult B with 35% . The Cults are similar except that Cult B offers free rune magic that is at least five times more powerful (point-for-point) than that of Cult A, Cult B also provides Healing 6 spells to initiates for free, and Cult B has no geases or restrictions. I would find it very hard to believe in such a world. Who in their right mind would join Cult A? As members of Cult A are weaker their attrition rate is higher than Cult B, so how are they larger? Over time the members of Cult B will live longer and get richer. As described such an theological ecosystem is out of balance. So all of a world's 'systems' whether biological, theological, economic, trade, or political must have a degree of balance to be sustainable. Only a slight imbalance is needed to produce change and evolution. Also IMO it must be conceived as sustainable by the Players to be believable. If someone created a rational for sustainability that was totally alien to my culture then I suspect that I would not be capable of running a Player Character in that world. Trevor Ellis --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From aescleal at btinternet.com Sat Jul 12 00:41:27 2003 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (aescleal at btinternet.com) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 15:41:27 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] The Nature Of RPGs (was something else...) Message-ID: <6833314.1057934487590.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> But you can win and loose if I understand the blurb on the box correctly - even if you win and loose as a group - so there is a competition going on. However, I can't comment on it much more than that as I haven't played it. Cheers, Ash > from: lepus at anthrobunny.com > date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 13:59:38 > to: rq-rules at crashbox.com > subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] The Nature Of RPGs (was something else...) > > On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 aescleal at btinternet.com wrote: > > > Rules don't make a game a game - it's the element of competition. Maybe my dictionary's wrong though. > > Is Reiner Knizia's "Lord of the Rings" a game? It certainly seems to be. > It has been every time I've played it. And yet there is no competition. > But how can this be? > > -- > "It's great to be known, but it's even > better to be known as strange." > - Chairman Takeshi Kaga > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From aescleal at btinternet.com Sat Jul 12 00:43:47 2003 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (aescleal at btinternet.com) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 15:43:47 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Sustainable Broo Groups Message-ID: <3397055.1057934627552.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> "I think you are concentrating on the word 'Balance', and wrongly equating it with Equality. When in fact what we were talking about with the Broo question was sustainability." In that case, ignore everything I've been saying. I thought I was actually replying to one of Simon's comments on how runepower broke game balance. Cheers, Ash From lepus at anthrobunny.com Sat Jul 12 00:41:43 2003 From: lepus at anthrobunny.com (lepus at anthrobunny.com) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 07:41:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] The Nature Of RPGs (was something else...) In-Reply-To: <6833314.1057934487590.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 aescleal at btinternet.com wrote: > But you can win and loose if I understand the blurb on the box correctly - even if you win and loose as a group - so there is a competition going on. However, I can't comment on it much more than that as I haven't played it. You can "win" a roleplaying game too. The objective is to have fun -- if everyone has fun, then you've achieved your objective. In fact, in Nobilis, it's even more concrete: the GM, by rule, cannot hand out *ANY* experience points if anyone in the group didn't have fun. -- "It's great to be known, but it's even better to be known as strange." - Chairman Takeshi Kaga From carpgachair at yahoo.com Sat Jul 12 01:58:04 2003 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 08:58:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Hello! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20030711155804.58632.qmail@web12408.mail.yahoo.com> --- Andrew Larsen wrote: > Hi. I've just signed on to the list, although I've > been playing RQ since > the early 80s. After watching the list for a few > days, I'm curious what > percentage of the list plays RQ in Glorantha and > what percentage plays in > other game-world settings? > As for unintended uses for rune magic, my > favorite idea was as a way to > get rid of the Crimson Bat. Have a bunch of Eurmali > sacrifice for 150 pts > of Swallow and then just eat the damn thing. > > Andrew E. Larsen We had a dwarf artificer who used the hall's entire supply of black powder, made a missile steered by a volunteer familiar, and blew the monster up. The familiar's spirit drifted back down and the PC went looking for another animal to put it in. Paul Cardwell (who refereed the first public demonstration of RQ3 at Origins '84) __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com From andrew at crashbox.com Sat Jul 12 02:05:47 2003 From: andrew at crashbox.com (Andrew O. Mellinger) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 09:05:47 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Hello! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: >I have never used Glorantha. Never could understand it. I never used it until I played in a game with an experienced GM. Then I got it and I like it, but yes it isn't a normal medieval world. >Used Mystara, What is that. I've H?rnWorld. Which I might add, is very very very cool. What I usually do is take a world map I like (I'm very into maps for games, I think that provide a quick visual to tie people together) and then put a game in it. I've use the maps for Pern (Ann McCafferey), and the Land (Stephen R. Donaldson) but used my own worlds. I've also done campaings with my own maps. And I often do city-campaigns in a fleshed-out version of TSR's lankmar map. Scanned it in, filled it in, etc. 140 MB of photoshop, ick. -Andrew -- From LKirshtein at howost.com Sat Jul 12 03:30:10 2003 From: LKirshtein at howost.com (Kirshtein, Leon) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 13:30:10 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Acolyte rules seem missing Message-ID: <3156D872DCD0D411AF85000102C00AE60E7F3C21@hosntexch01.howost.strykercorp.com> All the discussion so far have made me decide to canonize some rules for Rune magic and the way cults work for my campaign. Suggestions and opinions are welcome. 1. Unless otherwise stated in the Cult's description the (standard) requirements to join and remain are: Lay Member - If you are an initiate, or higher, of an Allied cult, you are considered a lay member of this cult. Pay 10L to join, donate 1MP during each worship ceremony you attend, follow the guidelines given you. Initiate - If you are a priest or a rune lord of an Allied cult, you are considered an honorary initiate of this cult. "Honorary" means you can sacrifice for divine magic on a one use basis, but are not required to pay tithe or perform other duties of an initiate. You can join the cult without asking permission, in which case you are a full fledged initiate. Allied spirits are by definition are initiates of the cult. Pay 100L fee; be an acceptable candidate; must not be a sorcerer or a shaman unless allowed; show proficiency with 3 cult skills (must succeed in skill checks 3 out of 5 chosen). If the test is failed, it is up to the initiating priest to decide to accept or not. Sacrifice 1pt of POW; donate all but 1MP during each worship ceremony you attend (unless told otherwise); donate 10% of your time and money to your cult (normally to your superior in the cult) Acolyte (Associated Priest) - (I am changing this to all cults having them.) Pay 1000L fee; be an initiate or a honorary initiate (become Associated Priest); "Associated Priest" means you can sacrifice for divine magic on a reusable basis, but are not required to pay tithe or perform other duties of an acolyte; must not be a sorcerer or a shaman unless allowed; have 10pt of Rune magic (including: Initiate, Sanctify, Spellteaching, Worship) from this cult (not allied cults); have 5 cult skills at 50% or higher (some cults have higher requirements); must be an opening; succeed in POW*5 or perform a mission given to you by an initiating superior; donate all but 1MP during each worship ceremony you attend (unless told otherwise); perform ceremonies if no priest is available; donate 30% of your time and money to your cult (normally to your superior in the cult). Allied spirits with power of 18 or above are considered Acolytes. Priest - Be an initiate or an acolyte, not an Associated Priest, in good standing for 1 year; must not be a sorcerer or a shaman unless allowed; must forget any sorcery unless allowed; have 10pt of Rune magic (including: Initiate, Sanctify, Spellteaching, Worship) from this cult (not allied cults); have 5 cult skills at 50% or higher (some cults have higher requirements); succeed in POW*3 (+1%/100L donated) or perform a mission given to you by an initiating superior; donate all but 1MP during each worship ceremony you attend (unless told otherwise); perform ceremonies then required; donate 70% of your time and money to your cult (typically cult sponsored projects); ALL none Cult manipulation (melee attack, missile attack) and agility (parry, stealth) skills are limited to DEX*3. Cults which do not have Priest may, or may not have Acolytes. Receive an allied spirit if one is available. Rune Lord - (I am changing this to all cults having them, but not all get 1d10 DI or reusable Rune magic) Be an initiate in good standing for 3 years; must not be a priest, sorcerer, shaman or Rune Lord unless allowed; have 5 cult skills at 90% or higher; must be an opening; succeed in POW*5 or perform a mission given to you by an initiating superior; donate 1MP during each worship ceremony you attend; donate 90% of your time and money to your cult. It is possible to hold the offices of Rune Lord and Acolyte at the same time. In this case the more restrictive criteria will apply. Receive an allied spirit and iron weapons and armor if available. High Priest - (Not all cults have these.) Must be an opening; be a ranking follower in the community with a congregation size defined by the GM (No High Priests of a party, unless the party are the only worshippers.); perform all duties of a priest; acquire the following spells as soon as possible: Initiate, Sanctify, Spellteaching, Worship, Divination, Excommunication; donate 100% of your time and money to your cult. It is possible to hold the offices of Rune Lord and High Priest at the same time. In this case the more restrictive criteria will apply. Some High Priests have access to 1d10 DI without being a Rune Lord. Receive an allied spirit if one is available. All cult Rune magic is reusable to High Priests even spells which are one use to Priests. 2. Rune spells - are all one use unless stated otherwise. - to sacrifice one must donate 100L/point, ask permission from a ranking priest, succeed in Lore skills check (takes 1 hour/ point); sacrifice 1pt of POW per point of the spell - to repray one must be in a Sanctified area and succeed in Lore skill check (takes 1 day/ point). - spells which are one use to priests are not available to Acolytes or lower, They are available to Rune Lords. Leon Kirshtein From esoteric at crashbox.com Sat Jul 12 03:47:57 2003 From: esoteric at crashbox.com (esoteric at crashbox.com) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 10:47:57 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Acolyte rules seem missing In-Reply-To: <3156D872DCD0D411AF85000102C00AE60E7F3C21@hosntexch01.howost.strykercorp.c om> References: <3156D872DCD0D411AF85000102C00AE60E7F3C21@hosntexch01.howost.strykercorp.c om> Message-ID: All this is very similar to my own campaign rules. >Acolyte (Associated Priest) - >(I am changing this to all cults having them.) >Pay 1000L fee; be an initiate or a honorary initiate (become Associated >Priest); "Associated Priest" means you can sacrifice for divine magic on a >reusable basis, but are not required to pay tithe or perform other duties of >an acolyte; must not be a sorcerer or a shaman unless allowed; have 10pt of >Rune magic (including: Initiate, Sanctify, Spellteaching, Worship) However, I substitute Divination for Initiate, retaining the requirement for Sanctify, Spellteaching, Worship. I don't want travelling priests (some of the rules texts mention that acolytes are different than "priests" who are tied to a fixed temple and congregation) choosing who to initiate. As well, some of the rules texts specifically delineate Divination as a tyipcal common duty of these priests/acolytes. >from this >cult (not allied cults); have 5 cult skills at 50% or higher (some cults >have higher requirements); must be an opening; succeed in POW*5 or perform a >mission given to you by an initiating superior; donate all but 1MP during >each worship ceremony you attend (unless told otherwise); perform ceremonies >if no priest is available; donate 30% of your time and money to your cult >(normally to your superior in the cult). >Allied spirits with power of 18 or above are considered Acolytes. -- Brad Furst esoteric at crashbox.com From DevinC at aol.com Sat Jul 12 04:03:48 2003 From: DevinC at aol.com (DevinC at aol.com) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 14:03:48 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Sustainable Broo Groups Message-ID: <239C2448.423B8C92.00047AF1@aol.com> In a message dated 7/11/2003 7:41:33 AM Eastern Standard Time, aescleal at btinternet.com writes: Both concepts (Realism and Balance) must be balanced, at at times can be mutually exclusive. Why do powerful adventuring groups basically meet hostile and powerful creatures but low powered groups do not? Is it realistic that neophyte adventurers only happen to encounter neophyte powered foes? This is an inherent advantage the PLAYERS have over the characters. They know, assuming they have a competant GM, that they will never be put into a hopeless situation with no chance of success. OTOH, their actual adventuring counterparts would theoretically have no such knowledge. The adventuring career of a party in a completely realistic setting with no regard to balance might have a career of: "You travel for a day and are suddenly leapt upon by an ancient red dragon. It breathes once and you all die. That was fun. Next." The point here is merely to state that one cannot slide too far into the balance direction or the realism direction without encountering pitfalls. Devin From LKirshtein at howost.com Sat Jul 12 04:27:27 2003 From: LKirshtein at howost.com (Kirshtein, Leon) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 14:27:27 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Acolyte rules seem missing Message-ID: <3156D872DCD0D411AF85000102C00AE60E7F3C25@hosntexch01.howost.strykercorp.com> Brad wrote: > I substitute Divination for Initiate, retaining the requirement for Sanctify, Spellteaching, Worship. I don't want travelling priests (some of the rules texts mention that acolytes are different than "priests" who are tied to a fixed temple and congregation) choosing who to initiate. As well, some of the rules texts specifically delineate Divination as a tyipcal common duty of these priests/acolytes. I just can not see Divination being a requirement. Desirable yes, requirement ... , I am not convinced. As for Initiate I can see your point. I will make it a requirement for Priests, but "desirable" for Acolytes. Leon Kirshtein From Michael.Christian at corbis.com Sat Jul 12 05:51:18 2003 From: Michael.Christian at corbis.com (Michael Christian) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:51:18 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Spell database/Broo Sustainability Message-ID: <306F012D0A00D611BC9D0008C791927404AC9E22@seamail1.continuum.corbis.corp> Does anyone have a link to the spells database that someone on this list compiled not all that long ago? The one that I have does not seems to be working. Thanks for any assistance given. Cultural/racial sustainability and realism seems to be a big issue in a lot of fantasy games. Orcs as they are commonly depicted in myriad fantasy games for example do not seem like a sustainable or realistic race. They are always depicted as infighting, backstabbing, out for only the good of themselves, etc. Broo seem to have a bit of the same thing. I can't think of a historical real world culture that is comparable. It just wouldn't survive to the point of even being a viable race/culture in the first place, it would have wiped itself out before that point ever occurred. It would be nice to see something similar to the cultural background info that was done for trolls in Glorantha done for broo as well. Even if it wasn't nearly as in depth it would be valuable to develop some background on what seem to be the common foot soldiers/cannon fodder of chaos. Michael From leonbk at yahoo.com Sat Jul 12 06:30:22 2003 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 13:30:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Spell database/Broo Sustainability In-Reply-To: <306F012D0A00D611BC9D0008C791927404AC9E22@seamail1.continuum.corbis.corp> Message-ID: <20030711203022.44571.qmail@web41108.mail.yahoo.com> --- Michael Christian wrote: > Does anyone have a link to the spells database that > someone on this list > compiled not all that long ago? The one that I have > does not seems to be > working. Thanks for any assistance given. That would be mine. The address are: www.godlearner.d2g.com - main page www.godlearner.d2g.com/runequest.htm - RuneQuest stuff www.godlearner.d2g.com/main.asp - database Enjoy. If you have problems let me know. > Cultural/racial sustainability and realism seems to > be a big issue in a lot > of fantasy games. Orcs as they are commonly depicted > in myriad fantasy games > for example do not seem like a sustainable or > realistic race. They are > always depicted as infighting, backstabbing, out for > only the good of themselves, etc. The things they got going for them are (based on Tolken books): 1. Very resilent 2. Breed quickly 3. Live as long as elves (immortal?) Constant infighting is controled by powerful leaders. I think they are a sustainable society as long as they have an enemy, or other races whom they can raid. If left to their own devises I think they would implode in short order. > Broo seem to have a bit of the same thing. I do not think that broo can sustain a society above feral level, with exceptions of some remarkable individuals. > I can't think of > a historical real world culture that is comparable. I think Sparta and the Vikings would be the closest, but even that is a strech. > It would be > nice to see something similar to the cultural > background info that was done > for trolls in Glorantha done for broo as well. Even > if it wasn't nearly as > in depth it would be valuable to develop some > background on what seem to be > the common foot soldiers/cannon fodder of chaos. Well, the problem is you have to get a group together which is interested in both Glorantha and RQ/BFR and at the same time ignore the obvious "gregging" which such a project would certainly get. ===== Leon Kirshtein www.godlearner.d2g.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com From soltakss at yahoo.com Sat Jul 12 07:48:27 2003 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (=?iso-8859-1?q?Simon=20Phipp?=) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 22:48:27 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: The Nature Of RPGs (was something else...), acolytes In-Reply-To: <20030711023303.682244C4A7@thinbits.com> Message-ID: <20030711214827.7886.qmail@web9607.mail.yahoo.com> Leon Kirshtein: > Simon wrote: > >I always liked the combination of Second Mouth and Swallow. Virtually > undetectable until the last minute when it is all too late. Also, the > victim's mind will probably be on other things than checking for > assassination attempts. > > Since we are on the topic, throw in Erocotuslucidity (sorry about the > spelling do not have books with me) on top of those two and now you can > really enjoy eating (with) your enemies :) We used to play that this caused functional incapacitation (think about it) and, as it could not be resisted and could last for a hell of a long time, it is possibly the most powerful combat spell around. I have used it to stop an attack on a Uleria Temple simply by having a priestess touch a warrior on the arm and watch his eyes roll back in his head. Of course, if the recipient is then killed, the Uleria priestess is guilty of murder and is kicked out of the cult, so you have to be careful about what happens to them afterwards. We treated it like the Chalana Arroy Sleep - under the protection of the Uleria cult, just let him be and watch he doesn't dribble too much. Ashley: > Simon trots out the tired and pointless old mantra: > > "Yes, but the whole point is about game balance." Probably because I am a tired, pointless old gamer. > There is no such as game balance in RPGs - if a GM wants to liquidate a > party, he damned well can. Arguing about "balance" in RPGs implies that: > > (a) RPGS are fair contests; > (b) You can win. > > To whit: (a) They're not contests (which means that G in RPG is a bit of a > misnomer) and (b) you can't. Game Balance in that rules are proportionate with other rules, that one rule does not blow all the other rules out of the water. For the record, the rules about Runepower are jolly good, don't unbalance the game (as there is no balance), are the best thing since RQ3 Sorcery and everyone should use them. How about that? I don't play RQ any more, so I won't be using them. > "RPGs are games." > > No they're not. Games by definition have an element of competition, RPGs > can't have if they're going to work. The GM isn't a traditional, impartial > referee in an RPG - he's an active, living part of the whole experience. Don't forget, it's only a game (another tired, pointless old mantra, I'm afraid). Oh no, I forgot, it isn't a game after all. Sorry, I've been playing it wrong for 20 years. Gerall Kahla: > Reading over it, Acolytes seem to be Priests in waiting. (Waiting for > the other Priests to get whacked so they can collect those tithes!) I see acolytes as being like lay priests or lay preachers. Imagine a village with a church and not many people in the congregation, there are not enough people for a full-time priest so they have a lay preacher who keeps things going and a priest who visits every month or so. That's how I see acolytes, they fill in, they do the things that the priests haven't time to do, they have some of the benefits (reusable magic, some cult support, lower tithe) but not all (no allied spirits, no gathering of tithes, eating after the priests). Leon Kirshtein: > > Reading over it, Acolytes seem to be Priests in > > waiting. (Waiting for > > the other Priests to get whacked so they can collect > > those tithes!) > > Retired Priest and Rune Lords become Acolytes as well. > (Granted that is not likely ending for a player > character.) My main RQ character retired, admittedly to a Hero's Hall where he is part of his bodyguard. He popped up now and again to irritate the other PCs when I was GMing permanently but was quite happy with his pipe and slippers and big pile of gold. Simon ________________________________________________________________________ Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo! Messenger http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/ From soltakss at yahoo.com Sat Jul 12 08:24:26 2003 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (=?iso-8859-1?q?Simon=20Phipp?=) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 23:24:26 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Acolytes In-Reply-To: <20030711200803.894734C4A8@thinbits.com> Message-ID: <20030711222426.58715.qmail@web9602.mail.yahoo.com> Leon Kirshtein: > All the discussion so far have made me decide to canonize some rules for > Rune magic and the way cults work for my campaign. Suggestions and opinions > are welcome. Good stuff. Some comments: 1. People born into a cult should automatically be accepted as initiates 2. We played that all allied spirits (in RQ3) counted as acolytes and had resuable magic. 3. Anyone should be able to improve their chances by bribing the priests, or donating to the cult 4. We played that acolytes didn't need 10 points of rune magic and didn't have to have the required spells, such as Divination, Spell Teaching or so on, although they had to have Worship (Deity). Acolytes who loked after shrines normally had these spells, as they were pastoral. 5. In RQ3, we played that not all cults had Rune Lords, but Priests of a cult that owned a rune had D10 DI, so Uleria priestesses had D10 but Kyger Litor priestesses didn't, but Karrg Sons did. 6. We played that all cults had Chief Priests and High Priests. A High Priest led a large or Great temple, a Chief Priest led a small temple or section of a large or great temple. Chief Priests had to satisfy the same requirements as High Priests, except that this was a promotion in the temple, rather than leading the temple or setting up a new temple. 7. All Rune Magic is reusable to priests unless stated otherwise. 8. Initiates and acolytes cannot sacrifice for spells that are one-use to priests Devin: > Both concepts (Realism and Balance) must be balanced, at at times can be > mutually exclusive. Why do powerful adventuring groups basically meet > hostile and powerful creatures but low powered groups do not? Is it > realistic that neophyte adventurers only happen to encounter neophyte > powered foes? Ah, but they don't . Sometimes it is good to throw in someone who the party can't touch - just to put them in their place. Of course, if they then defeat that person through skill, tactics and good planning then they have proved something very important. > This is an inherent advantage the PLAYERS have over the > characters. They know, assuming they have a competant GM, that they will > never be put into a hopeless situation with no chance of success. Sometimes it is good to present them with a challenge that they cannot overcome, something that is impossible and they cannot succeed. What is important is how they cope with it. Do they go off and bring something else to bear? Do they give in and accept defeat? Do they try anyway and suffer a noble demise? Do they whinge for hours and blame the useless GM? > OTOH, > their actual adventuring counterparts would theoretically have no such > knowledge. The adventuring career of a party in a completely realistic > setting with no regard to balance might have a career of: > > "You travel for a day and are suddenly leapt upon by an ancient red dragon. > It breathes once and you all die. That was fun. Next." Ah, the "you are walking down the street when suddenly ...." gambit, one I have used all too often. > The point here is merely to state that one cannot slide too far into the > balance direction or the realism direction without encountering pitfalls. If you have no dangerous challenges then things get a bit boring. Similarly, if everything is a killfest then things get boring as well. I remember one scenario in the Rubble where we had to get to a troll stronghold where there was a portal to chaos (or something). We went through the Rubble and met random encounters so powerful that each time we went in one of the party was killed and taken back for resurrection (the temple was only an hour away). By the time we had used up the 4 resurrects allocated to us by the generous temple, we decided to go home. End of scenario. Let someone else close the portal. Simon ________________________________________________________________________ Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo! Messenger http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/ From leonbk at yahoo.com Sat Jul 12 08:51:29 2003 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 15:51:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Acolytes In-Reply-To: <20030711222426.58715.qmail@web9602.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20030711225129.44981.qmail@web41104.mail.yahoo.com> --- Simon Phipp wrote: > All the discussion so far have made me decide to > canonize some rules for > Rune magic and the way cults work for my campaign. > Suggestions and opinions are welcome. > > > > Good stuff. Thanks. :) > Some comments: > 1. People born into a cult should automatically be > accepted as initiates I am not so sure about it. I would rather say they are automatically lay members, but must still pass the initiation tests > 2. We played that all allied spirits (in RQ3) > counted as acolytes and had resuable magic. I roll to see how much, if any, Rune magic an allied spirit starts with, to make it all reusable at the start doesn't make sense to me. > 3. Anyone should be able to improve their chances by > bribing the priests, or donating to the cult I think I have built that in, by leaving the final decision to the initiating priest at each level. > 5. In RQ3, we played that not all cults had Rune > Lords, but Priests of a cult > that owned a rune had D10 DI, so Uleria priestesses > had D10 but Kyger Litor priestesses didn't, but Karrg Sons did. Yes, I had played it the same way, but have chosen to change it. > 6. We played that all cults had Chief Priests and > High Priests. A High Priest > led a large or Great temple, a Chief Priest led a > small temple or section of > a large or great temple. Chief Priests had to > satisfy the same requirements > as High Priests, except that this was a promotion in > the temple, rather than > leading the temple or setting up a new temple. My rules do the same, I am just leaving up to the GM to set the size of the congregation. > 7. All Rune Magic is reusable to priests unless > stated otherwise. > 8. Initiates and acolytes cannot sacrifice for > spells that are one-use to priests. I believe my rules are the same. The major difference I think is that I give High Priest all magic reusable and 1d10 DI. ===== Leon Kirshtein www.godlearner.d2g.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com From dahak at dahak.free-online.co.uk Sat Jul 12 08:51:19 2003 From: dahak at dahak.free-online.co.uk (Adam Canning) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 23:51:19 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Runepower, Sustainable Broo Groups and All PCs are Evil, Nasty stackable spells In-Reply-To: <20030711023304.00A364C4A5@thinbits.com> Message-ID: <3F0F4D77.20593.134666F@localhost> Before I read this title I'd never really considered the possibility of Spells as PC's. I suspect the stackablity and Evil nastiness are not necessary. I can see a few possibilities 1]Do PC Spells want to be cast or learn't or are they like the last spell of the Octavo desperately trying to manipulate when they are cast? 2] Can they choose to be learnt? Virally spread from caster to caster? 3] A PC could be a Sentient long term illusion. -- Adam From DevinC at aol.com Sat Jul 12 11:35:12 2003 From: DevinC at aol.com (DevinC at aol.com) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 21:35:12 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Acolytes Message-ID: <0B414E36.52A23AE8.00047AF1@aol.com> In a message dated 7/11/2003 5:24:26 PM Eastern Standard Time, soltakss at yahoo.com writes: > Ah, but they don't . Sometimes it is good to throw in someone who the > party can't touch - just to put them in their place. Of course, if they then > defeat that person through skill, tactics and good planning then they have > proved something very important. That depends. If the above-their-heads encounter is fahsioned in such a way that it requires cleverness to defeat the opponent, or if the encounter can be traversed non-violently or if the party is given sufficient warning to just plain run away...that's obviously a good show. But what I meant was, in vulgar terms, the generic monster bounce where it goes "raar" and attacks you. > > Sometimes it is good to present them with a challenge that they cannot > overcome, something that is impossible and they cannot succeed. What is > important is how they cope with it. Do they go off and bring something else > to bear? Do they give in and accept defeat? Do they try anyway and suffer a > noble demise? Do they whinge for hours and blame the useless GM? > The problem here is that if you are not very careful you end up with two undesirable outcomes: 1. The party assumes the can handle it and gets decimated, or 2 (often after a few instances of #1). The party becomes paranoid and basically won't take the bait in your scenarios for fear of tangling with something too large to handle. There is, of course, and entire difference between a tough encounter (a party of initiates taking on a rune lord) and an impossible encounter (a party of initiates taking on one of the horrors from the Dorastor book). > Ah, the "you are walking down the street when suddenly ...." gambit, one I > have used all too often. It's not as ridiculous as that. Presumably in some worlds dragons exist. Presumably they hunt far afield. Presumably in doing so they have as much chance of happening upon a group of low levellers as a group of high levellers. Should a GM simply roll on a single encounter table and let the dice fall where they may in the name of "realism"? Or, should the GM simply not use wandering tables and design encounters specifically for the party? (which is anti realistic and pro balance). Or should a GM use the table but, if an encounter is indicated that is way over the heads of the party, have the dragon merely be seen flying in the distance or have the dragon exact a toll for safe passage from the party? In a brutally realistic fantasy world, brutally random things are going to happen to the PCs, often at the expense of a good story. I guess the question devolves into whether you are telling a story with the PCs as the potential heroes (or antagonists) or whether you are running a world that the PCs just happen to inhabit. To my mind, the best experience is somewhere between these two extremes. > If you have no dangerous challenges then things get a bit boring. Agreed. Though I never said or implied otherwise. I am talking about impossible challenges. >Similarly, > if everything is a killfest then things get boring as well. I remember one > scenario in the Rubble where we had to get to a troll stronghold where there > was a portal to chaos (or something). We went through the Rubble and met > random encounters so powerful that each time we went in one of the party was > killed and taken back for resurrection (the temple was only an hour away). By > the time we had used up the 4 resurrects allocated to us by the generous > temple, we decided to go home. End of scenario. Let someone > else close the > portal. So was the secanrio, in your opinion, difficult or impossible? It looks as if at the very least you could withdraw and return at your leisure. In a brutally realistic world, that might not always be the case. Devin From aelarsen at mac.com Sun Jul 13 02:39:01 2003 From: aelarsen at mac.com (Andrew Larsen) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2003 11:39:01 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Broo Sustainability Message-ID: Re: the issue of Broo sustainability, I agree that a situation in which the older broo mate with the younger, weaker broo would be unsustainable most circumstances, especially since it's a zero-sum gain. One broo dies to birth another. But the worship of Sidana offers a very perverse model for a sustainable system that avoids the zero-sum gain problem. Creatures conceived under the influence of Blessing of Sidana are often twins. So a clever broo worshipper of Sidana could take advantage of this. He could commit incest and cast Blessing of Sidana. If the result is twin broo, he could then decide which offspring is the more promising, and mate with the other, casting Blessing of Sidana again. If he gets lucky, and the matings result in twins regularly, he gets a slowly expanding clan of broo. Granted, the clan starts to show the deleterious effects of inbreeding after a couple of generations, but by that point he's so addicted to the practice that he can't stop. I also recall seeing a write-up of the Cult of Ragnaglar on the web somewhere. It included the runespell Rut, which allowed a broo to successfully mate with anything that he a sufficient opening in it, including trees, rocks, and other things. Opens up whole worlds of unpleasantness for PCs. Speaking of disturbing habits of broo reproduction, I suppose that's another way to get rid of the Crimson Bat. Get a broo to mate with it. The tricky part is getting the Bat to sit still for it. Of course, not long there after, you have to deal with a Crimson Bat broo, but that's another story. Andrew E. Larsen (who's far too interested in the implications of chaotic reproduction for his own good) From aelarsen at mac.com Sun Jul 13 02:42:14 2003 From: aelarsen at mac.com (Andrew Larsen) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2003 11:42:14 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Hello Message-ID: So, it seems that most of the people who have responded to my question about what game-world they play in don't actually play in Glorantha. Out of curiosity, why not? I've always felt that Glorantha was probably the single-best fantasy world ever created for gaming purposes (and right up there with Middle Earth for development and inventiveness). I've never wanted to play RQ in any other setting. Part of what I like about the world is that it's not the same old 'generic medieval Europe' that so many game systems try to create (usually without much success, IMHO). Andrew E. Larsen From kruch7 at cox.net Sun Jul 13 02:49:11 2003 From: kruch7 at cox.net (Joseph Elric Smith Mormon minion of Arioch) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2003 12:49:11 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Hello References: Message-ID: <005601c34895$8558eb70$1108a8c0@kenneith93j41k> Well I enjoyed Glorantha with Runequest 2 but I didn't; like at all many of the developments both of the world and some of the changes in the game when it went to runequest 3. I guess I just wasn't; happy with how the world developed, but I loved the rules system, so I just kept the rules and moved on. ken Gygax is to Gaming what Kirby was to comics Alas poor Elric I was a thousand times more evil than you http://www.geocities.com/J_Elric_Smith/Index.html ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew Larsen" To: Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2003 12:42 PM Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Hello > So, it seems that most of the people who have responded to my question about > what game-world they play in don't actually play in Glorantha. Out of > curiosity, why not? I've always felt that Glorantha was probably the > single-best fantasy world ever created for gaming purposes (and right up > there with Middle Earth for development and inventiveness). I've never > wanted to play RQ in any other setting. Part of what I like about the world > is that it's not the same old 'generic medieval Europe' that so many game > systems try to create (usually without much success, IMHO). > > Andrew E. Larsen > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From gerall at chromebob.com Sun Jul 13 05:32:25 2003 From: gerall at chromebob.com (Gerall Kahla) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2003 14:32:25 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Hello In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3F106249.3090803@chromebob.com> Andrew Larsen wrote: > So, it seems that most of the people who have responded to my question about > what game-world they play in don't actually play in Glorantha. Out of > curiosity, why not? I've got a solid answer to this question: the fanatics. The more you dig into Glorantha on the Internet (because there hasn't been much in the way of printed material about it lately), you'll encounter people who will debate [argue] with you about the length of the Lunar shortsword. Religiously. As though getting *that deep* somehow validates their gaming experiences more than yours. Yeah, I'm running a mutant-Glorantha setting right now. But I'm not going to discuss it with anyone on the Internet who shows even the slightest degree of inflexibility. They sour the experience, for me at least. > I've always felt that Glorantha was probably the > single-best fantasy world ever created for gaming purposes (and right up > there with Middle Earth for development and inventiveness). I've never > wanted to play RQ in any other setting. Part of what I like about the world > is that it's not the same old 'generic medieval Europe' that so many game > systems try to create (usually without much success, IMHO). I'll agree - Glorantha is a seriously well-envisioned, self-contained world that borrows history from our local reality, then twists them to fit it's own world. I really like the world, both in fictional format and in gaming format. It's completely the people who get in my face for writing up my own version of Arroin that make me want to wash my hands of the Gloranthan reality and venture into strange realms (which is what I got into gaming for anyway)... Pax omnium veritas -- -- G. Kahla - he who codes From slposey at concentric.net Sun Jul 13 06:42:10 2003 From: slposey at concentric.net (Stephen Posey) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2003 14:42:10 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Hello References: Message-ID: <3F1072A2.7F92D6EF@concentric.net> Andrew Larsen wrote: > > So, it seems that most of the people who have responded to my question about > what game-world they play in don't actually play in Glorantha. Out of > curiosity, why not? I've always felt that Glorantha was probably the > single-best fantasy world ever created for gaming purposes I'd personally have to assign that title to Professor Barker's Tekumel, I find it hangs together, having the feel of a real place, better than any other invented gaming world I've ever encountered. No offense to Greg Stafford, I think Glorantha is an amazing and compelling piece of work, but IMO it comes off as a bit too contrived and shows the inside jokes and references in ways that short-circuit my personal suspension of disbelief. My attraction to RQ/BRP has always been the rules, they just "make sense" to me. [And, yes, I've got my flameproof underwear on ;-)] Stephen Posey slposey at concentric.net From andrew at crashbox.com Sun Jul 13 07:39:54 2003 From: andrew at crashbox.com (Andrew O. Mellinger) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2003 14:39:54 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Hello In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: >So, it seems that most of the people who have responded to my question about >what game-world they play in don't actually play in Glorantha. Out of >curiosity, why not? I've always felt that Glorantha was probably the >single-best fantasy world ever created for gaming purposes (and right up >there with Middle Earth for development and inventiveness). Glorantha is a fine world, but it certainly has its own specific, strong flavor. And that flavor being so strong doesn't include a lot of elements that I prefer in gaming. Take for example dwarves and elves, we all know about them. And look at the magic. While it is pervasive, and some is very powerful, it isn't a lot of flash-bang magic missile, fireball kinda stuff. I generally prefer a high-magic game. Glorantha's big benefit is that it is vast and detailed. The drawback is that is detailed, and that detail often-times hangs in a fine balance. If you remove one part you don't like as a GM, then it is hard to make the rest balance out. An I have to agree with Gerall Kahla, the fanatics. I've been to a Glorantha con, and while enjoyable was a little too deep and esoteric for me. I can only so wrapped up in a fantasy religion. BTW: Another fine world (and one that can be tampered with easier) is Harn. -Andrew -- From soltakss at yahoo.com Sun Jul 13 08:19:14 2003 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (=?iso-8859-1?q?Simon=20Phipp?=) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2003 23:19:14 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Broo Sustainability, Acolytes, Hello In-Reply-To: <20030712195202.AF2C14C4AE@thinbits.com> Message-ID: <20030712221914.50830.qmail@web9605.mail.yahoo.com> Leon Kirshtein: > > Broo seem to have a bit of the same thing. > > I do not think that broo can sustain a society above > feral level, with exceptions of some remarkable > individuals. The only broo societies that are non-feral are those with a Hero-Broo at the top who puts a stop to all that funny business. The Castrati of the Humakti Broo Legion in Dorastor are an example of what he does to naughty little broos. Does anyone use broos outside of Glorantha in other worlds? I see them as being particularly Gloranthan. > > It would be > > nice to see something similar to the cultural > > background info that was done > > for trolls in Glorantha done for broo as well. Even > > if it wasn't nearly as > > in depth it would be valuable to develop some > > background on what seem to be > > the common foot soldiers/cannon fodder of chaos. > > Well, the problem is you have to get a group together > which is interested in both Glorantha and RQ/BFR and > at the same time ignore the obvious "gregging" which > such a project would certainly get. Bros are covered in Borderlands and Elder Secrets, not to the extent of trolls, but enough to make you wash your hands after reading it. > > 7. All Rune Magic is reusable to priests unless > > stated otherwise. > > 8. Initiates and acolytes cannot sacrifice for > > spells that are one-use to priests. > > I believe my rules are the same. The major difference > I think is that I give High Priest all magic reusable > and 1d10 DI. With my nitpicker hat on, you said all spells are one-use unless stated otherwise, not reusable unless stated otherwise. Adam Canning: > Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Runepower, Sustainable Broo Groups and All PCs are > Evil, Nasty stackable spells > Before I read this title I'd never really considered the possibility of > Spells as PC's. > > I suspect the stackablity and Evil nastiness are not necessary. PCs are certainly variable, are usually temporal and active, seldom passive, definitely stackable (in the games I play, anyway), and normally eveil, especially when they destory my hand-crafted scenario within 10 minutes by killing the Vampire ambassador as he tries to help them or by going to the Tower of Lead (which took a month to write) and saying "we're not going there - too dangerous". Devin: > That depends. If the above-their-heads encounter is fahsioned in such a way > that it requires cleverness to defeat the opponent, or if the encounter can > be traversed non-violently or if the party is given sufficient warning to > just plain run away...that's obviously a good show. But what I meant was, > in vulgar terms, the generic monster bounce where it goes "raar" and > attacks you. Oh, we had those as well, it's just that when I was playing rather than GMing, they were normally dragons or behemoths (A behemoth was written up as a small man with "muscles on his muscles", who would teleport in, hit someone randomly doing something like 100 points of damage to a random location, would then be attacked by everyone in the party with Fireblade (which did 5 times damage) and then teleport out. If he rolled badly, the person died, if he rolled well they stuck the linmb back on again). Very tiresome, indeed, especially the tenth time it happened in a scenario. > The problem here is that if you are not very careful you end up with two > undesirable outcomes: > > 1. The party assumes the can handle it and gets decimated, or > > 2 (often after a few instances of #1). The party becomes paranoid and > basically won't take the bait in your scenarios for fear of tangling with > something too large to handle. But a good GM can take 1. and turn it to his advabtage by generating a number of scenarios - a powerful NPC sees them and helps them; the slain PCs are taken to a cave/castle/hovel and are rscued by the remaining PCs; the NPC stops and makes friends with the PCs; the NPC does not kill them if they "do him a little favour" and so on. 2 only happens if you use a powerful encounter too often. We traditionally had the powerful NPC and his minions as the last encounter of an adventure, something the players knew about and had geared up to. Only occasionally did another powerful NPC roll up and have a go. > > Ah, the "you are walking down the street when suddenly ...." gambit, one > I > > have used all too often. > > It's not as ridiculous as that. Presumably in some worlds dragons exist. > Presumably they hunt far afield. Presumably in doing so they have as much > chance of happening upon a group of low levellers as a group of high > levellers. Should a GM simply roll on a single encounter table and let the > dice fall where they may in the name of "realism"? Or, should the GM simply > not use wandering tables and design encounters specifically for the party? > (which is anti realistic and pro balance). Or should a GM use the table > but, if an encounter is indicated that is way over the heads of the party, > have the dragon merely be seen flying in the distance or have the dragon > exact a toll for safe passage from the party? Exactly, it all depends on how the GM wants the game to progress. Perhaps he wants the PCs to do something and uses the dragon as a tool. Perhaps he wants them to hide and the dragon will only stop if one of them fumbles and sticks his bottom out of a bush. Perhaps he wants the dragon to be a friend and it only attacks when the PCs say "look at this amulet, I got it when I killed loads of dragonewts" having fumbled trying to say "look, we are dragonfriends, I got this amulet from a Full Priest when I helped loads of dragonewts". > >Similarly, > > if everything is a killfest then things get boring as well. I remember > one > > scenario in the Rubble where we had to get to a troll stronghold where > there > > was a portal to chaos (or something). We went through the Rubble and met > > random encounters so powerful that each time we went in one of the party > was > > killed and taken back for resurrection (the temple was only an hour > away). By > > the time we had used up the 4 resurrects allocated to us by the generous > > temple, we decided to go home. End of scenario. Let someone > > else close the > > portal. > > So was the secanrio, in your opinion, difficult or impossible? It looks as > if at the very least you could withdraw and return at your leisure. In a > brutally realistic world, that might not always be the case. The scenario was ridiculous. It was certainly possible, but the GM was using his most powerful monsters as random encounters in the Big Rubble - how many Broo Rune Lord Priests or Dragons or crazed Aldryami are you likely to find walking through the Rubble? It was a case of him being vindictive and we said enough was enough and stopped after one session of a planned 4 session adventure. These things happened in the Big Rubble, about half an hour's march from our secret entrance and the Healers. Had they happened in the middle of Dorastor, things would have turned out a lot differently. Andrew Larsen: > Re: the issue of Broo sustainability, I agree that a situation in which the > older broo mate with the younger, weaker broo would be unsustainable most > circumstances, especially since it's a zero-sum gain. One broo dies to > birth another. That is thinking from an ecological point of view, the survival of the species. Thinking of it from a feral broo point of view "I am horny, I can't see any animals, little No-horn is really annoying me, come here!" I recall reading somewhere that female or hermaphrodite broo are very careful not to show what they are, because they would be victim of broo-birth after they became pregnant. This doesn't sound like male broos have much regard for their clan's survival. > But the worship of Sidana offers a very perverse model for a > sustainable system that avoids the zero-sum gain problem. > Creatures conceived under the influence of Blessing of Sidana are often > twins. So a clever broo worshipper of Sidana could take advantage of this. > He could commit incest and cast Blessing of Sidana. If the result is twin > broo, he could then decide which offspring is the more promising, and mate > with the other, casting Blessing of Sidana again. If he gets lucky, and > the > matings result in twins regularly, he gets a slowly expanding clan of broo. > Granted, the clan starts to show the deleterious effects of inbreeding > after > a couple of generations, but by that point he's so addicted to the practice > that he can't stop. Actually, the clan could be very strong, especially if he HeroQuested - god genes can be acrried as well as bad ones. > I also recall seeing a write-up of the Cult of Ragnaglar on the web > somewhere. It included the runespell Rut, which allowed a broo to > successfully mate with anything that he a sufficient opening in it, > including trees, rocks, and other things. Opens up whole worlds of > unpleasantness for PCs. I used a similar idea with the Microbros which could mate with absolutely anything - rocks, trees, water, the air. > Speaking of disturbing habits of broo reproduction, I suppose that's > another way to get rid of the Crimson Bat. Get a broo to mate with it. > The > tricky part is getting the Bat to sit still for it. Of course, not long > there after, you have to deal with a Crimson Bat broo, but that's another > story. Oh, broos can be very quick if they want to and as they are small the Bat wouldn't notice. Of course, I've never played that broo-birth is always fatal, I play that a normal broo does 2D6 abdomen damage each round and takes 1D3 rounds to eat its way out, so on average it does 14 points of damage - enough to kill a normal person. Bison and rhino broos would do 4D6, a Giant Broo 6D6 and so on. Pixie broos only do 1D6. A Crimson Bat broo would do a hell of a lot of damage, but the Bat could regenrate and would be really pissed off. Andrew Larsen: > So, it seems that most of the people who have responded to my question > about > what game-world they play in don't actually play in Glorantha. Out of > curiosity, why not? I've always felt that Glorantha was probably the > single-best fantasy world ever created for gaming purposes (and right up > there with Middle Earth for development and inventiveness). I've never > wanted to play RQ in any other setting. Part of what I like about the > world > is that it's not the same old 'generic medieval Europe' that so many game > systems try to create (usually without much success, IMHO). I don't play any more, but I used to play in Glorantha because it is so rich and detailed. Compare it to Greyhawk or a generic world. Also, I have no time to write up a new world. Gerall Kahla: > > I've always felt that Glorantha was probably the > > single-best fantasy world ever created for gaming purposes (and right up > > there with Middle Earth for development and inventiveness). I've never > > wanted to play RQ in any other setting. Part of what I like about the > world > > is that it's not the same old 'generic medieval Europe' that so many game > > systems try to create (usually without much success, IMHO). > > I'll agree - Glorantha is a seriously well-envisioned, self-contained > world that borrows history from our local reality, then twists them to > fit it's own world. I really like the world, both in fictional format > and in gaming format. > > It's completely the people who get in my face for writing up my own > version of Arroin that make me want to wash my hands of the Gloranthan > reality and venture into strange realms (which is what I got into > gaming for anyway)... What!!! You wrote up your own version of Arroin!! How could you??? :-) I got into gaming because there was a person on our floor at university who had a hobby, which he was a bit embarrassed about, which involved playing a bunch of people in a fantasy world. We asked him more about it and he said he'd run it once to show us what it was like. That was in 1982, playing RQ2 in Glorantha and I've never loked back. Simon ________________________________________________________________________ Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo! Messenger http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/ From jurrubin at earthlink.net Sun Jul 13 08:44:47 2003 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (D. Smart) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2003 17:44:47 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Broo Sustainability References: Message-ID: <3F108F5F.5040701@earthlink.net> Continuing the thought on disturbing broo reproduction, the best Con story I've heard, very likely posted by someone on this forum, was of a GM running two groups of players against each other at a Con. One group was a set of Light Sons (I think), the other group was a set of nasty chaos creatures. Two of the players roleplayed two rather weak broo. When the action started, the broo kept to the sidelines and for some reason the players became miffed, bored, or whatever and struck on a plan to liven things up. When one of the Light Sons somehow became helpless, the broo players came to their Statement of Intent and told the GM "We bugger him!". The GM replied, "you can't do that!" to which they countered "well, that's what broo do, don't they?" The GM reluctantly agreed and the action proceded with the broo putting paid to every Light Son that became helpless in one way or another during the fight. The Light Sons eventually won but for some reason no one bragged about the fight afterwards. I truly hope whoever the original poster was is on this forum and will correct any incorrect statements I've made and add details. He roleplayed one of the broo and his original post was truly hilarious. David Smart Andrew Larsen wrote: > Speaking of disturbing habits of broo reproduction, I suppose that's >another way to get rid of the Crimson Bat. Get a broo to mate with it. The >tricky part is getting the Bat to sit still for it. Of course, not long >there after, you have to deal with a Crimson Bat broo, but that's another >story. > > From tcantine at incentre.net Mon Jul 14 07:53:57 2003 From: tcantine at incentre.net (Thomas M. Cantine) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 14:53:57 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Divination as required spell Message-ID: Wrote Leon: >Brad wrote: >> I substitute Divination for Initiate, retaining the requirement for >Sanctify, Spellteaching, Worship. I don't want travelling priests (some of >the rules texts mention that acolytes are different than "priests" who are >tied to a fixed temple and congregation) choosing who to initiate. As well, >some of the rules texts specifically delineate Divination as a tyipcal >common duty of these priests/acolytes. > >I just can not see Divination being a requirement. Desirable yes, >requirement ... , I am not convinced. As for Initiate I can see your point. >I will make it a requirement for Priests, but "desirable" for Acolytes. > >Leon Kirshtein I can. Divination isn't necessarily limited to the typical use as an adventure hook. What is it that priests do all day long? They guide their followers, and seek guidance from their god? How do they seek guidance? I reckon they pray for it. Most of the time, the results of a Divination are insights into the ways of the god or hints at the solutions to problems facing some lay member of the cult, inspiration for this week's sermon, and so forth. In other words, I expect that the duties of a priest include casting Divination at least once a month, and praying for its reuse. It is a distinct function from the Worship spell, but just as essential to proper priestly duties. Its use in adventuring terms is rather more out of the ordinary, and hence costs are to be considered. You can't, except perhaps under exceptional circumstances, task your local priest to tell you how to get into the monster's treasure chamber as part of his normal monthly Divination; you have to wait in line with Initiate Joe (who wants guidance concerning whom to marry) and Initiate Martha (who needs to find out how to keep her teenager safe from the bad influence of that band of adventurers who've started hanging out at the tavern). Yet once in a while, a general Divination will yield a matter of some importance to the cult, necessitating an adventuring mission. Divination: you can't always get what you wanted, but if you try some time, you just might find you get what you need. /=================================\ | Thomas M. Cantine | | "Will Think For Food" | \=================================/ http://www.incentre.net/tcantine From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Mon Jul 14 18:41:19 2003 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 09:41:19 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Hello Message-ID: >So, it seems that most of the people who have responded to my question about >what game-world they play in don't actually play in Glorantha. Out of >curiosity, why not? because it is someone else's creation (I like making my own setting, as do many gamers), and because Glorantha is a relatively "opaque" setting: it takes quite a while to get up to speed and even the bits you think should be easy to introduce neophytes to (e.g. the West) are actually very difficult to grasp in a way that seems to treat the source material seriously. >I've always felt that Glorantha was probably the >single-best fantasy world ever created for gaming purposes (and right up >there with Middle Earth for development and inventiveness). Nah, that's Jorune (from Skyrealms of Jorune). As rich as Glorantha, as exotic as Tekumel, as gritty as Harn, but more approachable than any of them, with a perfect justification for having adventurers and the prefect level of canonical detail: just enough to intrigue and stimulate, not enough to swamp you (and no feasible way of Gregging) and with a primary human culture as an entry point that _is_ very familiar to 21st century people. Sadly, it's long out of print, unsupported and unlikely to be back in print any time soon... >I've never >wanted to play RQ in any other setting. Part of what I like about the world >is that it's not the same old 'generic medieval Europe' that so many game >systems try to create (usually without much success, IMHO). > >Andrew E. Larsen But how many early RQ II worlds were "generic bronze age" I wonder? ;-) The RQ mechanics are remarkably adaptable and in the RQII era at least, RP books were expensive; so many of us who didn't get sucked into the maw of T$R rather got into the habit of rolling our own. I have fond memories of my brothers Eb-Kluash game (and unholy mix of RQII, RQIII, MERP/Rolemaster, DragonQuest, and TFT...). Cheers, Nick Middleton From ZanosAndeo at netscape.net Tue Jul 15 00:37:32 2003 From: ZanosAndeo at netscape.net (Myron Bateman) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 15:37:32 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Re: Hello Message-ID: <3F12C02C.5060004@netscape.net> >So, it seems that most of the people who have responded to my question about >what game-world they play in don't actually play in Glorantha. Out of >curiosity, why not? I've always felt that Glorantha was probably the >single-best fantasy world ever created for gaming purposes (and right up >there with Middle Earth for development and inventiveness). I've never >wanted to play RQ in any other setting. Part of what I like about the world >is that it's not the same old 'generic medieval Europe' that so many game >systems try to create (usually without much success, IMHO). > >Andrew E. Larsen The explanation is simple in my case. When I was introduced to Runequest, way back in'86, my GM was running Alternate Earth. I was always a D&D player before then (and before the d20 revolution). I never seriously started GMing RQ until much later. Part of the reason I started was for the pseudo-realism of the rules (not having level 30 characters wade through hordes of orcs), and partly because I developed a campaign that the RQ magic system seemed to mesh better with. While I have most of the Glorantha supplements, I use them mainly to cull ideas, spells and equipment from. As for Glorantha, I never really could grasp some of the basic concepts (maybe the way my brain is wired??), so I never found any enjoyment in it. If I had the right GM... Zanos -- Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas. Experience the convenience of buying online with Shop at Netscape! http://shopnow.netscape.com/ From DevinC at aol.com Tue Jul 15 04:22:17 2003 From: DevinC at aol.com (DevinC at aol.com) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 14:22:17 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Hello Message-ID: <7A6A4CA0.60D83D41.00047AF1@aol.com> In a message dated 7/12/2003 3:42:10 PM Eastern Standard Time, slposey at concentric.net writes: > I'd personally have to assign that title to Professor Barker's Tekumel, > I find it hangs together, having the feel of a real place, > better than > any other invented gaming world I've ever encountered. I have a rabid fear of apostrophes, so I can't stomach Tekumel ;-) Actually I'd say Harn and Tekumel are probably the best realized fantasy worlds on the market. Glorantha is a close third, and when I played RQ I ran in Glorantha because, frankly, the two are so intertwined IMO. Devin From andrew at crashbox.com Tue Jul 15 04:29:32 2003 From: andrew at crashbox.com (Andrew O. Mellinger) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 11:29:32 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Very Important Information about =?iso-8859-1?Q?H=E2rn?= Message-ID: Information for Immediate Propagation 14 July 2003 Very Important Information Concerning H?rn As of 9th July 2003, the contract between Columbia Games Inc and myself is Terminated. Under the contract's Termination Clause, Columbia Games is required to immediately assign and/or re-assign all title and interest in H?rn & all derived products, back to myself (N. Robin Crossby), and to immediately cease publication of new H?rn & H?rn-related products. As of this date, Columbia Games no longer has the legal right to publish anything to do with H?rn. Any attempt on their part to do so, would constitute a breach of copyright and a breach of contract. The Company does have the right to dispose of existing inventory for an additional six months (until 9th January 2004). I encourage everyone to purchase back inventory of old H?rn-Products from Columbia Games until that date. I have undertaken this termination with considerable reluctance, but finally concluded that I had no choice. I have made several offers to Columbia Games to negotiate a new license that would allow them to continue publishing H?rn-Products legally, but the Company has ignored all such offers. Customers & Fans: If you are a Columbia Games customer, I ask you to respect my intellectual property rights in this matter. Please consider my rights when you think about purchasing new H?rn materials from Columbia Games. Please also consider that the Columbia Games Autoship programme ships only 'new' products. Please also note, that any photocopy, or Print-on-Demand products would constitute 'new product' for this purpose. Plans It is my intention to begin publishing new H?rn/H?rnMaster products very soon now. To this end, I will be opening a new website at www.kelestia.com. This site will offer free downloads, as well as an eShop where you can purchase H?rn products. Initially, we will be concentrating on ePublishing, but expect to expand into tangible products within a few months. We plan an aggressive publishing schedule. The new official products will be sold under the new brands "H?rn Canon" and "H?rnMaster Canon". Valued Contributors: Some of you have, in the past contributed valuable products in the form of writing, maps, art and editing to the world of H?rn. Until now, you have dealt mostly with Columbia Games Inc. As of this date, CGI is no longer legally permitted to publish H?rn products. If you have a product in the 'pipeline', please contact me directly (robin at crossby.ca). H?rn is not the work of a single individual. For the world to grow and prosper, it needs the efforts of dedicated contributors. I am actively seeking such people. If you are a cartographer, artist, writer or editor, there may be a place for you on our talented creative team... we are not only interested in people to produce 'traditional' RPG products. If you have, or want to make fiction, software/utilities, comics, satires, reviews, or anything else that might enhance the H?rnic experience, please contact me ASAP. We also have projects waiting for people to do them. We already have quite a few creative people on board and dozens of products in the pipeline, but more is better :-) I apologize for the concern and disruption this announcement is likely to cause in some quarters. I assure you that it is matched or exceeded by my own discomfort at this time, but, with any luck, better times are ahead. Thank you for your consideration and support, N. Robin Crossby Creator of H?rn -- From DevinC at aol.com Tue Jul 15 04:32:22 2003 From: DevinC at aol.com (DevinC at aol.com) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 14:32:22 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Hello Message-ID: <6558946D.04548A53.00047AF1@aol.com> In a message dated 7/14/2003 3:41:19 AM Eastern Standard Time, Nick.Middleton at invensys.com writes: > Nah, that's Jorune (from Skyrealms of Jorune). As rich as Glorantha, as > exotic as Tekumel, as gritty as Harn, but more approachable than any of > them, with a perfect justification for having adventurers and the prefect > level of canonical detail: just enough to intrigue and stimulate, not > enough to swamp you (and no feasible way of Gregging) and with a primary > human culture as an entry point that _is_ very familiar to 21st century > people. Sadly, it's long out of print, unsupported and > unlikely to be back > in print any time soon... I had forgotten about Jorune. Very impressive, though in some ways so exotic that you lose some of the fantasy archetype creatures like dwarves and elves. In addition, the thing that stopped me from adopting Jorune was its mesh of sci-fi and fantasy, something I really don't like. Am I remembering wrong, or didn't Jorune have sci-fi elements? Devin From LKirshtein at howost.com Tue Jul 15 04:35:49 2003 From: LKirshtein at howost.com (Kirshtein, Leon) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 14:35:49 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] (no subject) Message-ID: <3156D872DCD0D411AF85000102C00AE60E7F3C32@hosntexch01.howost.strykercorp.com> Devin wrote: >Actually I'd say Harn and Tekumel are probably the best realized fantasy worlds on the market. Glorantha is a close third, and when I played RQ I ran in Glorantha because, frankly, the two are so intertwined IMO. The main problem, IMO, for all three of these worlds, is the lack of supplements. Ask any gamer under 30 and they will be hard pressed to have heard of these worlds, never mind actually played in them. Lack of adventure supplements is what forces a lot of people into creating their own scenarios, which get "Gregged" which in turn further alienates the people whose major emphasis is on gaming as opposed to collective interactive fantasy participation. Leon From aragan at ucla.edu Tue Jul 15 04:40:56 2003 From: aragan at ucla.edu (Anthony Ragan) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 11:40:56 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Hello In-Reply-To: <6558946D.04548A53.00047AF1@aol.com> References: <6558946D.04548A53.00047AF1@aol.com> Message-ID: <20030714113920.EEFC.ARAGAN@ucla.edu> While scanning the heavens for a sign, DevinC at aol.com wrote on Mon, 14 Jul 2003 14:32:22 -0400: > I had forgotten about Jorune. Very impressive, though in some ways so > exotic that you lose some of the fantasy archetype creatures like > dwarves and elves. In addition, the thing that stopped me from adopting > Jorune was its mesh of sci-fi and fantasy, something I really don't like. > Am I remembering wrong, or didn't Jorune have sci-fi elements? No, you recall right. Jorune really is a science-fantasy world. I love it, myself. The admixture of SF elements works for me, given the premise of the setting. One these days, I hope to run a game there. ************** --Anthony Ragan aragan at ucla.edu "I think that the film 'Clueless' was very deep. I think it was deep in the way that it was very light. I think lightness has to come from a very deep place if it's true lightness." --Alicia Silverstone From steve at perrinworlds.com Tue Jul 15 04:43:41 2003 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Steve Perrin) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 11:43:41 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Jorune References: <6558946D.04548A53.00047AF1@aol.com> Message-ID: <01d601c34a37$d979f110$f4407442@wizard> Jorune was a fantasy world with scifi roots. It was an actual other world in the universe that humans had colonized. It had a magic that was rationalized in some fashion (been a long time since I read the rules, too). And lots of interesting races, many of which were analogs in fantasy ecology to elves and dwarves. In fact, one reason I was never that interested was the analogs were too close, in my opinion. Why have the one when elves do the same job, etc. Steve Perrin ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 11:32 AM Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Re: Hello > In a message dated 7/14/2003 3:41:19 AM Eastern Standard Time, Nick.Middleton at invensys.com writes: > > > Nah, that's Jorune (from Skyrealms of Jorune). As rich as Glorantha, as > > exotic as Tekumel, as gritty as Harn, but more approachable than any of > > them, with a perfect justification for having adventurers and the prefect > > level of canonical detail: just enough to intrigue and stimulate, not > > enough to swamp you (and no feasible way of Gregging) and with a primary > > human culture as an entry point that _is_ very familiar to 21st century > > people. Sadly, it's long out of print, unsupported and > > unlikely to be back > > in print any time soon... > > I had forgotten about Jorune. Very impressive, though in some ways so exotic that you lose some of the fantasy archetype creatures like dwarves and elves. In addition, the thing that stopped me from adopting Jorune was its mesh of sci-fi and fantasy, something I really don't like. Am I remembering wrong, or didn't Jorune have sci-fi elements? > > Devin > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From DevinC at aol.com Tue Jul 15 04:44:40 2003 From: DevinC at aol.com (DevinC at aol.com) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 14:44:40 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] (no subject) Message-ID: <38D0B78A.02C38BAC.00047AF1@aol.com> In a message dated 7/14/2003 1:35:49 PM Eastern Standard Time, LKirshtein at howost.com writes: > The main problem, IMO, for all three of these worlds, is the lack of > supplements. Ask any gamer under 30 and they will be hard pressed to have > heard of these worlds, never mind actually played in them. Lack of > adventure supplements is what forces a lot of people into creating their own > scenarios, which get "Gregged" which in turn further alienates the people > whose major emphasis is on gaming as opposed to collective > interactive > fantasy participation. > > Leon I can only agree with you. That's the reason I stopped with RQ and went back to D&D. I now run my own world entirely from whole cloth and don't use published scenarios at all, but the draw of having ready made supplements and scenarios is appealing. But, although out of print, didn't Harn have a cartload of supplements in its heyday? Devin From DevinC at aol.com Tue Jul 15 04:48:01 2003 From: DevinC at aol.com (DevinC at aol.com) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 14:48:01 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Jorune Message-ID: <3CD12D54.5277A1E5.00047AF1@aol.com> In a message dated 7/14/2003 1:43:41 PM Eastern Standard Time, steve at perrinworlds.com writes: > Jorune was a fantasy world with scifi roots. It was an actual other world in > the universe that humans had colonized. It had a magic that was rationalized > in some fashion (been a long time since I read the rules, too). And lots of > interesting races, many of which were analogs in fantasy ecology to elves > and dwarves. In fact, one reason I was never that interested was the analogs > were too close, in my opinion. Why have the one when elves > do the same job, > etc. > > Steve Perrin It did have analogs? Interesting. My take, I guess from only skimming the products and not seeing the term "Elf" or "Dwarf" was that it had eschewed the archetypes. P.S. Anyone remember Taslantia...which claim to fame was it's ads which boldly proclaimed "NO ELVES!". Devin From slposey at concentric.net Tue Jul 15 04:48:09 2003 From: slposey at concentric.net (Stephen Posey) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 12:48:09 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Hello References: <7A6A4CA0.60D83D41.00047AF1@aol.com> Message-ID: <3F12FAE9.1080906@concentric.net> DevinC at aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 7/12/2003 3:42:10 PM Eastern Standard Time, slposey at concentric.net writes: > > >>I'd personally have to assign that title to Professor Barker's Tekumel, >>I find it hangs together, having the feel of a real place, >>better than >>any other invented gaming world I've ever encountered. > > > I have a rabid fear of apostrophes, so I can't stomach Tekumel ;-) I'll grant that the language can appear a bit daunting at first; but after you spend a little time with it, it's no worse than some things that HPL or Moorcock came up with (can you say "Ia Cthulhu Ftaghn" or "R'lin K'ren A'a" ;-)) Nobody says you have to get it exactly right anyway, I once played in a cross-over game at a con with a GM who BADLY mangled some Tekumel names (I could tell this even before I got real familiar with the setting), it was still fun. > Actually I'd say Harn and Tekumel are probably the best > realized fantasy worlds on the market. Glorantha is a close > third, and when I played RQ I ran in Glorantha because, > frankly, the two are so intertwined IMO. A lot of folks seem to like Harn a lot, but the pieces of it I've read left me pretty cold; it came off to me like yet another "Middle Earth warmed over" setting, and a bit flavorless at that. OTOH, I like the Harnmaster rules very much. Stephen Posey slposey at concentric.net From slposey at concentric.net Tue Jul 15 04:53:20 2003 From: slposey at concentric.net (Stephen Posey) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 12:53:20 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Hello References: <6558946D.04548A53.00047AF1@aol.com> Message-ID: <3F12FC20.6090202@concentric.net> DevinC at aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 7/14/2003 3:41:19 AM Eastern Standard Time, Nick.Middleton at invensys.com writes: > > >>Nah, that's Jorune (from Skyrealms of Jorune). As rich as Glorantha, as >>exotic as Tekumel, as gritty as Harn, but more approachable than any of >>them, with a perfect justification for having adventurers and the prefect >>level of canonical detail: just enough to intrigue and stimulate, not >>enough to swamp you (and no feasible way of Gregging) and with a primary >>human culture as an entry point that _is_ very familiar to 21st century >>people. Sadly, it's long out of print, unsupported and >>unlikely to be back >>in print any time soon... > > > I had forgotten about Jorune. Very impressive, though in > some ways so exotic that you lose some of the fantasy > archetype creatures like dwarves and elves. In addition, the > thing that stopped me from adopting Jorune was its mesh of > sci-fi and fantasy, something I really don't like. Am I > remembering wrong, or didn't Jorune have sci-fi elements? FWIW, the same is true of Tekumel. Stephen Posey slposey at concentric.net From lepus at anthrobunny.com Tue Jul 15 04:53:48 2003 From: lepus at anthrobunny.com (lepus at anthrobunny.com) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 11:53:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Jorune In-Reply-To: <3CD12D54.5277A1E5.00047AF1@aol.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 DevinC at aol.com wrote: > P.S. Anyone remember Taslantia...which claim to fame was it's ads which boldly proclaimed "NO ELVES!". You don't have to "remember" it; the 4th edition is still fully in print and going strong. -- "It's great to be known, but it's even better to be known as strange." - Chairman Takeshi Kaga From slposey at concentric.net Tue Jul 15 05:31:42 2003 From: slposey at concentric.net (Stephen Posey) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 13:31:42 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Jorune References: <3CD12D54.5277A1E5.00047AF1@aol.com> Message-ID: <3F13051E.7020207@concentric.net> DevinC at aol.com wrote: > P.S. Anyone remember Taslantia...which claim to fame was it's ads > which boldly proclaimed "NO ELVES!". Speaking of analogs... While Talislanta didn't have any races called "elves", there was quite a selection of slender, magically/esthetically oriented, and pointy-eared humanoids in the game. An elf by any other name...? Stephen Posey slposey at concentric.net From steve at perrinworlds.com Tue Jul 15 05:50:05 2003 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Steve Perrin) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 12:50:05 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Jorune References: <3CD12D54.5277A1E5.00047AF1@aol.com> <3F13051E.7020207@concentric.net> Message-ID: <02df01c34a41$20279320$f4407442@wizard> At least the Jorune esthetic, magically intensive race of pseudoelves didn't look like elves. And their secretive craftsmen with great metalworking talent didn't look like dwarves. I don't even think they were particularly short, though memory may be failing me on that. Steve Perrin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen Posey" To: Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 12:31 PM Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Re: Jorune > DevinC at aol.com wrote: > > > P.S. Anyone remember Taslantia...which claim to fame was it's ads > > which boldly proclaimed "NO ELVES!". > > Speaking of analogs... > > While Talislanta didn't have any races called "elves", there was > quite a selection of slender, magically/esthetically oriented, > and pointy-eared humanoids in the game. > > An elf by any other name...? > > Stephen Posey > slposey at concentric.net > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From lepus at anthrobunny.com Tue Jul 15 05:50:18 2003 From: lepus at anthrobunny.com (lepus at anthrobunny.com) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 12:50:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Jorune In-Reply-To: <02df01c34a41$20279320$f4407442@wizard> Message-ID: My approach is similar to the RQ/Glorantha approach: if you're going to include the stereotypical humanoid races, just include them, but give them interesting twists so it's not just the same old thing. In the fantasy world I'm currently developing, for instance, elves take the roles of both stereotypical elves and dwarves, as the aloof expert crafters of the world. My preferred tagline is usually "No Orcs!". -- "It's great to be known, but it's even better to be known as strange." - Chairman Takeshi Kaga From DevinC at aol.com Tue Jul 15 06:39:04 2003 From: DevinC at aol.com (DevinC at aol.com) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 16:39:04 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Jorune Message-ID: <50C1DCD2.2A4F1B54.00047AF1@aol.com> In a message dated 7/14/2003 2:50:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, lepus at anthrobunny.com writes: > My approach is similar to the RQ/Glorantha approach: if you're going > to include the stereotypical humanoid races, just include them, > but give them interesting twists so it's not just the same old thing. > > In the fantasy world I'm currently developing, for instance, elves take > the roles of both stereotypical elves and dwarves, as the > aloof expert > crafters of the world. > > My preferred tagline is usually "No Orcs!". I rather like what Glorantha did with the stereotypical elves, dwarves, and trolls. We all know that Trollpak really "humanized" trolls in the sense that they become more than just big slobbery monsters. I also like how elves evolved into bizarre plant-based creatures with a rather alien outlook and got away from Tolkineesque elves. Similarly, Mostali as presented by orthodox Glorantha are very litte like Tolkienesque dwarves. Their outlook on life is just plain whacky! Devin From jurrubin at earthlink.net Tue Jul 15 09:39:10 2003 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (D. Smart) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 18:39:10 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re=3A_=5BRQ-Rules=5D_Very_Important_Infor?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?mation_about_H=E2rn?= References: Message-ID: <3F133F1E.9090400@earthlink.net> Awww, CRAP! MAN, I hate to see this kind of stuff happen. >:( David Smart Andrew O. Mellinger wrote: > Information for Immediate Propagation > 14 July 2003 > > Very Important Information Concerning H?rn > > As of 9th July 2003, the contract between Columbia Games Inc and > myself is > Terminated. > > Under the contract's Termination Clause, Columbia Games is required to > immediately assign and/or re-assign all title and interest in H?rn & all > derived products, back to myself (N. Robin Crossby), and to immediately > cease publication of new H?rn & H?rn-related products. > As of this date, Columbia Games no longer has the legal right to publish > anything to do with H?rn. Any attempt on their part to do so, would > constitute a breach of copyright and a breach of contract. > > The Company does have the right to dispose of existing inventory for an > additional six months (until 9th January 2004). I encourage everyone to > purchase back inventory of old H?rn-Products from Columbia Games until > that > date. > > I have undertaken this termination with considerable reluctance, but > finally > concluded that I had no choice. I have made several offers to Columbia > Games > to negotiate a new license that would allow them to continue publishing > H?rn-Products legally, but the Company has ignored all such offers. > > > Customers & Fans: > > If you are a Columbia Games customer, I ask you to respect my > intellectual > property rights in this matter. Please consider my rights when you think > about purchasing new H?rn materials from Columbia Games. Please also > consider that the Columbia Games Autoship programme ships only 'new' > products. Please also note, that any photocopy, or Print-on-Demand > products > would constitute 'new product' for this purpose. > > > Plans > > It is my intention to begin publishing new H?rn/H?rnMaster products very > soon now. To this end, I will be opening a new website at > www.kelestia.com. > This site will offer free downloads, as well as an eShop where you can > purchase H?rn products. Initially, we will be concentrating on > ePublishing, > but expect to expand into tangible products within a few months. We > plan an > aggressive publishing schedule. The new official products will be sold > under > the new brands "H?rn Canon" and "H?rnMaster Canon". > > > Valued Contributors: > > Some of you have, in the past contributed valuable products in the > form of > writing, maps, art and editing to the world of H?rn. Until now, you have > dealt mostly with Columbia Games Inc. As of this date, CGI is no longer > legally permitted to publish H?rn products. > If you have a product in the 'pipeline', please contact me directly > (robin at crossby.ca). > > H?rn is not the work of a single individual. For the world to grow and > prosper, it needs the efforts of dedicated contributors. I am actively > seeking such people. If you are a cartographer, artist, writer or editor, > there may be a place for you on our talented creative team... we are not > only interested in people to produce 'traditional' RPG products. If you > have, or want to make fiction, software/utilities, comics, satires, > reviews, > or anything else that might enhance the H?rnic experience, please > contact me > ASAP. We also have projects waiting for people to do them. We already > have > quite a few creative people on board and dozens of products in the > pipeline, > but more is better :-) > > > I apologize for the concern and disruption this announcement is likely to > cause in some quarters. I assure you that it is matched or exceeded by my > own discomfort at this time, but, with any luck, better times are ahead. > > > Thank you for your consideration and support, > > N. Robin Crossby > Creator of H?rn From andrew at crashbox.com Tue Jul 15 10:23:19 2003 From: andrew at crashbox.com (Andrew O. Mellinger) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 17:23:19 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: [RQ-Rules] Very Important Infor mation about =?iso-8859-1?Q?H=E2rn?= In-Reply-To: <3F133F1E.9090400@earthlink.net> References: <3F133F1E.9090400@earthlink.net> Message-ID: The other half of the story. (Just found it) http://www.harnforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=2451 I'm gonna have to keep out of this one. -Andrew At 6:39 PM -0500 7/14/03, D. Smart wrote: >Awww, CRAP! > >MAN, I hate to see this kind of stuff happen. > >>:( > >David Smart > >Andrew O. Mellinger wrote: > >>Information for Immediate Propagation >>14 July 2003 >> >>Very Important Information Concerning H?rn >> >>As of 9th July 2003, the contract between Columbia Games Inc and myself is >>Terminated. -- From leonbk at yahoo.com Tue Jul 15 11:48:33 2003 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 18:48:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Module conversion "The Last Initiate" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20030715014833.58411.qmail@web41107.mail.yahoo.com> I have recently benn looking at D&D3 module to convert to RuneQuest. The module is "The Last Initiate" from Monkeygod Enterprises. I think it would fit in well IMW. I am planning to replace the clerics with Mostali dwarfs and orcs with trolls. Has anyone else looked at this product? I would like to know as to what people have done with it. ===== Leon Kirshtein www.godlearner.d2g.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com From slposey at concentric.net Tue Jul 15 12:43:48 2003 From: slposey at concentric.net (Stephen Posey) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 20:43:48 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: [RQ-Rules] Very Important Infor mation about =?iso-8859-1?Q?H=E2rn?= References: <3F133F1E.9090400@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <3F136A64.66EDF4CF@concentric.net> "Andrew O. Mellinger" wrote: > > The other half of the story. (Just found it) > > http://www.harnforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=2451 > > I'm gonna have to keep out of this one. Oh, man what a mess. I think they both need to stop posturing and come to some sensible terms that won't leave the Harn fans out in the cold and just end up padding some lawyers' pockets. Stephen Posey slposey at concentric.net From DevinC at aol.com Tue Jul 15 13:15:18 2003 From: DevinC at aol.com (DevinC at aol.com) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 23:15:18 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: [RQ-Rules] Very Important Infor mation about H=?ISO-8859-1?B?4nJu?= Message-ID: <0AE15C15.21D27CDB.00047AF1@aol.com> In a message dated 7/14/2003 9:43:48 PM Eastern Standard Time, slposey at concentric.net writes: > Oh, man what a mess. > > I think they both need to stop posturing and come to some sensible terms > that won't leave the Harn fans out in the cold and just end > up padding > some lawyers' pockets. > > Stephen Posey > slposey at concentric.net This has to be an ego thing. After all, it's not like Harn is a mega-seller these days. It's fairly low on the popularity totem pole and therefore the money they are fighting over can't be that much. Frex, the royalties they are quibbling over amount to $250 per month from my reading of the contract terms on the Harn website. Pretty small potatoes if you ask me! Devin From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Tue Jul 15 18:58:43 2003 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 09:58:43 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] (no subject) Message-ID: >>Devin wrote: >>Actually I'd say Harn and Tekumel are probably the best realized fantasy >>worlds on the market. Glorantha is a close third, and when I played RQ I ran >>in Glorantha because, frankly, the two are so intertwined IMO. > >The main problem, IMO, for all three of these worlds, is the lack of >supplements. Leo, the below is so NOT aimed at you (or anyone in particular), but this is a topic that "pushes" a particular button so please excuse me: Sorry, but this is the sort of short sighted nonsense that almost killed RPG's ten years ago."We need more supplements" say the buying public (when what they want is _something_ that makes gaming easier to do). "They want more supplelemnts, what's cheap and easy... I know background and rules!" say the companies. And we get wall to wall crap: look at Witless W*nkers or T$R's output in the early to mid nineties: ever more elaborate, intricate, illogical and badly play-tested expansions of ever more obscure by ways of their game worlds, simply to fleece the paying punter of more money. And said books don't help ANYONE PLAY! Why? Because they are too long, full of too much extraneous guff that having paid for people feel they ought to use, but can't be bothered with. Compare T$R's _original_ (1e) "Savage Frontier" detailing the north of the Forgotten Realms (a concise 96 page guide, full of ideas, plot hooks and atmosphere without swamping the referee (but I'd expect nothing less from a co-creator of Griffin Mountain)) with the monstrous 2e bloatware that is The North: a huge 300+ page boxed set _that covers the same area_. I (and indeed most gamers who don't play MMOG or Living gmaes) don't want to play in someone elses game, I want to play in _mine_, even if it is _my_ version of Greyhawk or Glorantha. I don't want ever more obscure fabrications about their version (even if "they" are Greg Stafford or Ed Greenwood), I want stuff that helps me play the game: quick NPC's, encounter ideas and short adventures for when the players career off in entirely the unexpected direction. NOT great treatises on obscure by ways of history: I'll do those when (if) I need them, and frankly if the creator wants to do them then write a bloody novel or three but stop clogging up the gaming shelves! > Ask any gamer under 30 and they will be hard pressed to have >heard of these worlds, never mind actually played in them. Lack of >adventure supplements is what forces a lot of people into creating their own >scenarios, which get "Gregged" which in turn further alienates the people >whose major emphasis is on gaming as opposed to collective interactive >fantasy participation. Ahh! _ADVENTURES_ I'll agree with you, they are always helpful (even if I never use the actual scenario, I can pull NPCs, encounters, maps and ideas). But I think the reason people end up Gregging is the excess of obscure cultural detail over adventures: more Apple Lanes, Snake Pipe Hollows or Strangers in Prax and fewer Elder Secrets etc would have let people play the game and wouldn't encourage the pointless debates over minutiae. If Greg wants to keep elaborating his creation, then write fiction and publish it as such. T$R greatest era was when? The early to mid eighties, when they were pumping out quick and dirty dungeon modules at a _terrifying_ rate. Adventures do not individually make a lot of money, but build up a library of them and suddenly your game world becomes easy to play in, THAT'S how D&D built its dominance in the early days IMO. Now maybe in this day and age we need a new model of structuring the products (Griffin Mountain, i.e. Sourcebook _plus_ advetures) and maybe commercial games companies need to look at more freebies to help build their market (e.g. web enhancements) but that's a separate debate. Ahem, time for my medication I think ;-) Cheers, Nick Middleton From LKirshtein at howost.com Tue Jul 15 22:04:08 2003 From: LKirshtein at howost.com (Kirshtein, Leon) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 08:04:08 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] (no subject) Message-ID: <3156D872DCD0D411AF85000102C00AE60E7F3C38@hosntexch01.howost.strykercorp.com> Nick wrote: >>The main problem, IMO, for all three of these worlds, is the lack of supplements. >Leo, the below is so NOT aimed at you (or anyone in particular), but this is a topic that "pushes" a particular button so please excuse me: >Ahh! _ADVENTURES_ I'll agree with you, they are always helpful (even if I never use the actual scenario, I can pull NPCs, encounters, maps and ideas). But I think the reason people end up Gregging is the excess of obscure cultural detail over adventures: more Apple Lanes, Snake Pipe Hollows or Strangers in Prax and fewer Elder Secrets etc would have let people play the game and wouldn't encourage the pointless debates over minutiae. Yes, I did mean to say adventures/modules as opposed to supplement. My bad. >and maybe commercial games companies need to look at more freebies 100% agrrement here. A company (system/rules/world) needs to achive a critical audience mass to be successful and the way to achieve is to get people involved with it. To introduce it, it must be free. I realize that everything has a cost associated with it, but that is the nature of the gaming market today. Without the TSR taking the losses in the past and the OGL of today D&D would not have the following it does today. Speaking of free supplements, I have done several conversions from some material I found on the web and they are available on my website. Go to www.godlearner.d2.com/runequest.htm and follow the link to 'Other Things'. If you like what you see drop me a line it would be nice to know if someone is actually using the stuff. Now for my personal RANT: Get my name write! Its only 4 letters LEON!!! Leon Kirshtein www.godlearner.d2.com From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Tue Jul 15 22:25:42 2003 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 13:25:42 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] (no subject) Message-ID: >Speaking of free supplements, I have done several conversions from some >material I found on the web and they are available on my website. Go to >www.godlearner.d2.com/runequest.htm and follow the link to 'Other Things'. >If you like what you see drop me a line it would be nice to know if someone >is actually using the stuff. ehn? Missed those last time I was looking the site over, I'll have another look from home (can't access the site from work: port conflict with our work firewall I think) and mail you. I'm pulling together some notes for pitching a Dark Sun-esque RQIII campaign to the Wednesday group I play with, and one idea that I'm definitely likely to pursue is ways of using d20 material (especially stuff like the freeby adventures at WotC) easily... >Now for my personal RANT: > > > >Get my name write! Its only 4 letters LEON!!! > > Ouch! I am SO sorry, I completely missed that; which is particularly stupid of me as I a) new perfectly well who you were and b) went through that reply a couple of times looking for typos. I do apologise. Cheers, Nick Middleton From LKirshtein at howost.com Tue Jul 15 22:43:26 2003 From: LKirshtein at howost.com (Kirshtein, Leon) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 08:43:26 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] RE: RQ-Rules] (no subject) Message-ID: <3156D872DCD0D411AF85000102C00AE60E7F3C39@hosntexch01.howost.strykercorp.com> Nick wrote: >I am SO sorry, Ok, you are forgiven. :) As to the modules, I have more I am working on and will try to add to the site as I complete them. The hardest part is finding the time for everything. I am still working on the database, as well as putting some original material together for another related project, as well as running my campaign, as well as regular life type things. Hmm, I may need to redesign my website or put an index on it, or something. Leon Kirshtein www.godlearner.d2g.com From Michael.Christian at corbis.com Wed Jul 16 00:20:48 2003 From: Michael.Christian at corbis.com (Michael Christian) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 07:20:48 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Art of the First Cities Message-ID: <306F012D0A00D611BC9D0008C791927404AC9E38@seamail1.continuum.corbis.corp> This is off topic for the most part, and probably would be better placed on the Alternate Earth list. I did however find it interesting and inspirational, and figured those here might also as well. An exhibition of 3rd millennium BC art at The Met in NY. http://www.metmuseum.org/explore/First_Cities/firstcities_main.htm From soltakss at yahoo.com Wed Jul 16 01:48:37 2003 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (=?iso-8859-1?q?Simon=20Phipp?=) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 16:48:37 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Broo Sustainability In-Reply-To: <20030714184403.7D5904C4A8@thinbits.com> Message-ID: <20030715154837.77789.qmail@web9607.mail.yahoo.com> David Smart: > Continuing the thought on disturbing broo reproduction, the best Con > story I've heard, very likely posted by someone on this forum, was of a > GM running two groups of players against each other at a Con. One group > was a set of Light Sons (I think), the other group was a set of nasty > chaos creatures. Two of the players roleplayed two rather weak broo. Yelmalians vs Broos. The broos had a scorptionman and a Jack o'Bear. > When the action started, the broo kept to the sidelines and for some > reason the players became miffed, bored, or whatever and struck on a > plan to liven things up. When one of the Light Sons somehow became > helpless, the broo players came to their Statement of Intent and told > the GM "We bugger him!". The GM replied, "you can't do that!" to which > they countered "well, that's what broo do, don't they?" The players planned this right from the start, using their knowledge of how broos work. Also, they had a Jack o'Bear and weren't afraid of using him. > The GM reluctantly agreed and the action proceded with the broo putting > paid to every Light Son that became helpless in one way or another > during the fight. The Light Sons eventually won but for some reason no > one bragged about the fight afterwards. It's a good job Yelmalians wear skirts as armour - it makes it so much easier. > I truly hope whoever the original poster was is on this forum and will > correct any incorrect statements I've made and add details. He > roleplayed one of the broo and his original post was truly hilarious. I wasn't actually there, but I heard the story so many times that I could repeat it verbatim. That's why I put it on my website. The funniest part, in my opinion, was that the chaots had a Chaos Demon that could be summoned from a pool by sacrificing a living person by throwing him into the pool. The idea being they capture a Yelmalian, take him to the pool and throw him in. That's boring, though. The two weakest broos stood by the pool and started grappling with each other, after a couple of rounds, one of them succeeded and the other failed. The successful one picked the broo up and said "I sacrifice this willing victim to Chaos". "I'm not willing" whined the other broo as he was thrown in to summon some kind of tentacled monstrosity. The Chaos Demon thus arrived about 8 rounds early and caused no end of bother. The article is at http://www.geocities.com/soltakss/session1.html Perhaps the original players are looking - I don't think Stuart or Andrew follow the RQ-Rules and I never found out who the Yelmalian players were. I'd love to hear from them, though, to give their side of things. Simon ________________________________________________________________________ Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo! Messenger http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/ From DevinC at aol.com Wed Jul 16 04:44:56 2003 From: DevinC at aol.com (DevinC at aol.com) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 14:44:56 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] (no subject) Message-ID: <591C44B2.74A095B4.00047AF1@aol.com> I agree with Rick. DMs can handle the creative stuff. What is needed from game companies are the time consuming and drudgery stuff. As a DM, I'll gladly develop and elaborate the political situation and brewing war between two neighbouring lands. That's fun and, since it has an impact on the conduct of my campaign, I'll take care of that thank you very much. But what I want are wandering monster charts, NPC write ups, adventures to throw at the PCs when I don't have time to write one up or if the PCs go off on an unexpected course and I need to toss something at them. Devin From carpgachair at yahoo.com Wed Jul 16 06:53:23 2003 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 13:53:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Broo Sustainability, Acolytes, Hello In-Reply-To: <20030712221914.50830.qmail@web9605.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20030715205323.72799.qmail@web12403.mail.yahoo.com> --- Simon Phipp wrote: > Does anyone use broos outside of Glorantha in other > worlds? I see them as > being particularly Gloranthan. Mythworld has permission to use Gloranthan critters including in a non-Gloranthan setting. Their Bestiary says: BROO, GOATKIN Capranthropus maliferens GLORANTHAN MYTH (and other game systems) CHAOTIC Goat-headed humanoids of Glorantha, they are infamous for their disease-carrying which is a part of their religion. They have a 10% chance of carrying a major disease (01-10 on D100), a 30% chance of a minor one (11-40 on D100); if they are carrying, roll the type on D6 as indicated in VII D 1 in the Rules, or on D100 in VII D 2. STR 2D6+6; CON D6+12; SIZ 2D6+6 h[umanoid height/weight chart; Mythworld follows the square-cube law]; INT 2D6+6; MNA [POW] 3D6; DEX 3D6; TRU[stworthiness] D6; SAN[ity] 3D6; hit locations and points as humans. MOVE: land: 100m 5, 1km 2.5, l00km 1; swim: 100m 1.5, lkm 1; HJ 1.5, LJ 4 ARMOR: 3/3/3/3 head, none natural on rest; frequently uses leather or cuirboilli armor, metal when they can capture it, but no smith or armorer would ever make or repair it for them. SKILLS: any general skill, but trades restricted SPELLS: any except Xenohealing which is religiously prohibited MOUNT: none RELIGION: species; devoted to spreading disease OCCUPATION: foragers, no human guild will admit them HABITAT: most temperate widernesses DENSITY: 1-50; 10-100sq.km; primarily diurnal CHRONOLOGY: gestation 230d; walk 6m, run 8m; solid food 1m, wean 5m; keep-up 9m, survival 5y; maturation 12y; promiscuous; birth 1y, 2% twins; death 45y WEAPON: Butt, AR2, 25% crush, damage bonus only Fist, AR 1, 20%, D4 crush mode Uses sling, club, and pointed-stick short spear m: buck, f: doe, J: kit; coll: band; sound: talk; adj: hersine all rights reserved, c. 1983 __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com From slposey at concentric.net Wed Jul 16 08:08:28 2003 From: slposey at concentric.net (Stephen Posey) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 16:08:28 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Broo Sustainability, Acolytes, Hel References: <20030715205323.72799.qmail@web12403.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <3F147B5C.1090004@concentric.net> Paul Cardwell wrote: > --- Simon Phipp wrote: > >>Does anyone use broos outside of Glorantha in other >>worlds? I see them as >>being particularly Gloranthan. > > > Mythworld has permission to use Gloranthan critters > including in a non-Gloranthan setting. Their Bestiary > says: I've not heard of Mythworld previously, looks a bit RQ-like but with some interesting twists, can you tell us more? Stephen Posey slposey at concentric.net From carpgachair at yahoo.com Wed Jul 16 09:01:36 2003 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 16:01:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Broo Sustainability, Acolytes, Hel In-Reply-To: <3F147B5C.1090004@concentric.net> Message-ID: <20030715230136.51230.qmail@web12401.mail.yahoo.com> --- Stephen Posey wrote: > I've not heard of Mythworld previously, looks a bit > RQ-like but > with some interesting twists, can you tell us more? That is why it is sometimes called "the oldest RPG still in print that no one has ever heard of". :-) This will get into that boring story, but here goes. I had been doing some writing for RuneQuest. (Eight new weapons for RuneQuest in Different Worlds was the only one that got bylined.) This was about the time that RQ3 was in preparation. In fact, it could have been RQ3 except for one minor detail - Greg wanted a simpler game! Therefore we split, very amicably - I gave the demo session at Origins 83 for RQ3 the day before I did the same for Mythworld. Because we lost track of who came up with what, I got permission to use the Gloranthan critters in exchange for no further claims (which would have been nebulous and probably unprovable at best). I came out way ahead considering RQ disappeared on the battlefield of corporate takeovers. It is essentially as you describe, with even more "realism" (square-cube law, second law of thermodynamics, etc. still in place). The fantasy factors of polytheism, magic, and intelligent animals interacting with humans is overlaid on a very earth-like world. The Bestiary was used by the Dallas Museum of Natural History for an Olympics tie-in because it was the only place with running, swimming, and flying speeds, and jumping distances included in one place (meters per second and other metric measures because the math is so much easier). It even has an arithmetic approximation of terminal velocity in falls; ash, lava, and pyroclastic flow volcanoes; Mercalli earthquakes; and charts for weather. Yet, outside of character generation and the fumble chart, the players have no need to refer to any chart (they are mainly for scenarists). Magic and other rules are easily picked up, so it is an easy system to learn. The character sheet is four pages, so the character is fully developed (if not very skilled) from the beginning. All have a religion and a trade. There are over 100 general skills, not counting sub-categories such what language is read, written, or spoken. Yet, three of us once generated ten complete characters from scratch in one hour. Test playing has found it very compatible with RuneQuest (naturally) and Iron Crown's Middle Earth scenarios. Leaving out the fantasy rules and setting the techology to 1930, it works well with the 1930s horror movie scenarios from Chaosium (as Randy Ray of this list can testify, since he refereed them). It is still available in the original dot-matrix (but legible) font, typo-ridden (four page errata sheet) version for $35.00 postage paid for the boxed set. An expansion (not really a revision since the original rules worked quite well) is under testplaying, but no publication date is known. It is probable that all changes (mostly additions) will fit into a 48 page book so present players won't have to totally retool (unlike some game systems which shall remain nameless). The box includes: Rules, Bestiary, Outfitter, Spells, Skills books; an intro scenario; 5 character sheets; the dread errata sheet; and D4, 6, 20 Gamescience dice. The address is 1127 Cedar, Bonham, TX 75418 while supplies last (which will be for a comfortable, but still finite, time). It also has nostalgic value as it is a glimpse into that time long ago when games were designed by gamers for fun rather than corporations for money. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com From slposey at concentric.net Wed Jul 16 09:26:06 2003 From: slposey at concentric.net (Stephen Posey) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 17:26:06 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Broo Sustainability, Acolytes, Hel References: <20030715230136.51230.qmail@web12401.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <3F148D8E.70602@concentric.net> Paul Cardwell wrote: > --- Stephen Posey wrote: > >>I've not heard of Mythworld previously, looks a bit >>RQ-like but >>with some interesting twists, can you tell us more? > > > That is why it is sometimes called "the oldest RPG > still in print that no one has ever heard of". :-) > > This will get into that boring story, but here goes. > > I had been doing some writing for RuneQuest. (Eight > new weapons for RuneQuest in Different Worlds was the > only one that got bylined.) This was about the time > that RQ3 was in preparation. In fact, it could have > been RQ3 except for one minor detail - Greg wanted a > simpler game! Therefore we split, very amicably - I > gave the demo session at Origins 83 for RQ3 the day > before I did the same for Mythworld. > > Because we lost track of who came up with what, I got > permission to use the Gloranthan critters in exchange > for no further claims (which would have been nebulous > and probably unprovable at best). I came out way > ahead considering RQ disappeared on the battlefield of > corporate takeovers. > > It is essentially as you describe, with even more > "realism" (square-cube law, second law of > thermodynamics, etc. still in place). The fantasy > factors of polytheism, magic, and intelligent animals > interacting with humans is overlaid on a very > earth-like world. > > The Bestiary was used by the Dallas Museum of Natural > History for an Olympics tie-in because it was the only > place with running, swimming, and flying speeds, and > jumping distances included in one place (meters per > second and other metric measures because the math is > so much easier). > > It even has an arithmetic approximation of terminal > velocity in falls; ash, lava, and pyroclastic flow > volcanoes; Mercalli earthquakes; and charts for > weather. Yet, outside of character generation and the > fumble chart, the players have no need to refer to any > chart (they are mainly for scenarists). Magic and > other rules are easily picked up, so it is an easy > system to learn. > > The character sheet is four pages, so the character is > fully developed (if not very skilled) from the > beginning. All have a religion and a trade. There > are over 100 general skills, not counting > sub-categories such what language is read, written, or > spoken. Yet, three of us once generated ten complete > characters from scratch in one hour. > > Test playing has found it very compatible with > RuneQuest (naturally) and Iron Crown's Middle Earth > scenarios. Leaving out the fantasy rules and setting > the techology to 1930, it works well with the 1930s > horror movie scenarios from Chaosium (as Randy Ray of > this list can testify, since he refereed them). > > It is still available in the original dot-matrix (but > legible) font, typo-ridden (four page errata sheet) > version for $35.00 postage paid for the boxed set. An > expansion (not really a revision since the original > rules worked quite well) is under testplaying, but no > publication date is known. It is probable that all > changes (mostly additions) will fit into a 48 page > book so present players won't have to totally retool > (unlike some game systems which shall remain > nameless). > > The box includes: Rules, Bestiary, Outfitter, Spells, > Skills books; an intro scenario; 5 character sheets; > the dread errata sheet; and D4, 6, 20 Gamescience > dice. > > The address is 1127 Cedar, Bonham, TX 75418 while > supplies last (which will be for a comfortable, but > still finite, time). It also has nostalgic value as > it is a glimpse into that time long ago when games > were designed by gamers for fun rather than > corporations for money. Exceedingly cool, do you accept PayPal? Stephen Posey slposey at concentric.net From aelarsen at mac.com Wed Jul 16 13:02:51 2003 From: aelarsen at mac.com (Andrew Larsen) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 22:02:51 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Nick's Rant In-Reply-To: <20030715231603.C51C54C4AA@thinbits.com> Message-ID: > From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com > Leo, the below is so NOT aimed at you (or anyone in particular), but this > is a topic that "pushes" a particular button so please excuse me: > > > > Sorry, but this is the sort of short sighted nonsense that almost killed > RPG's ten years ago."We need more supplements" say the buying public (when > what they want is _something_ that makes gaming easier to do). "They want > more supplelemnts, what's cheap and easy... I know background and rules!" > say the companies. And we get wall to wall crap: look at Witless W*nkers or > T$R's output in the early to mid nineties: ever more elaborate, intricate, > illogical and badly play-tested expansions of ever more obscure by ways of > their game worlds, simply to fleece the paying punter of more money. And > said books don't help ANYONE PLAY! Why? Because they are too long, full of > too much extraneous guff that having paid for people feel they ought to > use, but can't be bothered with. Compare T$R's _original_ (1e) "Savage > Frontier" detailing the north of the Forgotten Realms (a concise 96 page > guide, full of ideas, plot hooks and atmosphere without swamping the > referee (but I'd expect nothing less from a co-creator of Griffin > Mountain)) with the monstrous 2e bloatware that is The North: a huge 300+ > page boxed set _that covers the same area_. I (and indeed most gamers who > don't play MMOG or Living gmaes) don't want to play in someone elses game, > I want to play in _mine_, even if it is _my_ version of Greyhawk or > Glorantha. I don't want ever more obscure fabrications about their version > (even if "they" are Greg Stafford or Ed Greenwood), I want stuff that helps > me play the game: quick NPC's, encounter ideas and short adventures for > when the players career off in entirely the unexpected direction. NOT great > treatises on obscure by ways of history: I'll do those when (if) I need > them, and frankly if the creator wants to do them then write a bloody novel > or three but stop clogging up the gaming shelves! I do think there's a place for detailed background information. For example, if you look at Sun County or River of Cradles, I think those do a good job of balancing scenarios with background material designed to make playing those scenarios easier. I particularly liked the way that River of Cradles has copies of all the relevant cults in the back--Sun County should have done likewise. The whole concept of Gregging has always pissed me off. Yes it was his world to start with, but once he started letting other people write stuff about it, I feel he lost the right to just unilaterally revise established points. That's also one of the things that irks me about HW. They've just sort of decided that long established facts don't matter, such as the decision that Zola Fel is a goddess, not a god. >> Ask any gamer under 30 and they will be hard pressed to have >> heard of these worlds, never mind actually played in them. Lack of >> adventure supplements is what forces a lot of people into creating their > own >> scenarios, which get "Gregged" which in turn further alienates the people >> whose major emphasis is on gaming as opposed to collective interactive >> fantasy participation. > > Ahh! _ADVENTURES_ I'll agree with you, they are always helpful (even if I > never use the actual scenario, I can pull NPCs, encounters, maps and > ideas). But I think the reason people end up Gregging is the excess of > obscure cultural detail over adventures: more Apple Lanes, Snake Pipe > Hollows or Strangers in Prax and fewer Elder Secrets etc would have let > people play the game and wouldn't encourage the pointless debates over > minutiae. If Greg wants to keep elaborating his creation, then write > fiction and publish it as such. T$R greatest era was when? The early to mid > eighties, when they were pumping out quick and dirty dungeon modules at a > _terrifying_ rate. Adventures do not individually make a lot of money, but > build up a library of them and suddenly your game world becomes easy to > play in, THAT'S how D&D built its dominance in the early days IMO. Now > maybe in this day and age we need a new model of structuring the products > (Griffin Mountain, i.e. Sourcebook _plus_ advetures) and maybe commercial > games companies need to look at more freebies to help build their market > (e.g. web enhancements) but that's a separate debate. > > I absolutely agree with you on this point. It's a damn shame that someone doesn't put out RQ scenarios with a Gloranthan setting. I'm sure there would be all sorts of legal issues to sort out and permission to be gotten from Issaries, but it's not like it would be directly competing with Hero Wars, since it's a different game system. Andrew E. Larsen From tiberius at runequest.za.org Wed Jul 16 20:08:23 2003 From: tiberius at runequest.za.org (tiberius at runequest.za.org) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 12:08:23 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Very Important Information about H=?iso-8859-1?Q?=E2rn_Reply-To?= Message-ID: <18868.196.8.104.31.1058350103.squirrel@mail.wack.co.za> Andrew O. Mellinger wrote: snip Information for Immediate Propagation 14 July 2003 Very Important Information Concerning Harn snip Please keep us posted Andrew. I unsubscribed from the harn list a while back. Tony From carpgachair at yahoo.com Thu Jul 17 01:55:21 2003 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 08:55:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Broo Sustainability, Acolytes, Hel In-Reply-To: <3F148D8E.70602@concentric.net> Message-ID: <20030716155521.57659.qmail@web12402.mail.yahoo.com> --- Stephen Posey wrote: > Exceedingly cool, do you accept PayPal? > > Stephen Posey > slposey at concentric.net As my description implied, Hippogriff Publications is a desktop publisher and a definite sideline. However, I accept cash, checks, money orders, and would consider any system not requiring elaborate set-up or giving the system any of my hard-earned money (that excludes credit cards and I assume PayPal). Paul Cardwell __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com From lepus at anthrobunny.com Thu Jul 17 01:54:36 2003 From: lepus at anthrobunny.com (lepus at anthrobunny.com) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 08:54:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Broo Sustainability, Acolytes, Hel In-Reply-To: <20030716155521.57659.qmail@web12402.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 16 Jul 2003, Paul Cardwell wrote: > As my description implied, Hippogriff Publications is > a desktop publisher and a definite sideline. However, > I accept cash, checks, money orders, and would > consider any system not requiring elaborate set-up or > giving the system any of my hard-earned money (that > excludes credit cards and I assume PayPal). Paypal doesn't charge anything for you to receive account-to-account transfers. If you accept a credit card payment, they keep something like 1.9% of it for a transaction fee. -- "It's great to be known, but it's even better to be known as strange." - Chairman Takeshi Kaga From andrew at crashbox.com Thu Jul 17 02:05:12 2003 From: andrew at crashbox.com (Andrew O. Mellinger) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 09:05:12 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Very Important Information about =?iso-8859-1?Q?H=E2rn?= Reply-To In-Reply-To: <18868.196.8.104.31.1058350103.squirrel@mail.wack.co.za> References: <18868.196.8.104.31.1058350103.squirrel@mail.wack.co.za> Message-ID: It seems that most of the current discussion by CGI or NRC is at the forum. This is the thread where CGI posted a response, and NRC responded to that. http://www.harnforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=2451 -Andrew >Andrew O. Mellinger wrote: > >snip >Information for Immediate Propagation >14 July 2003 > >Very Important Information Concerning Harn >snip > >Please keep us posted Andrew. I unsubscribed from the harn list a while back. >Tony >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules >http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules -- From carpgachair at yahoo.com Thu Jul 17 02:09:41 2003 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 09:09:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Broo Sustainability, Acolytes, Hel In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20030716160941.60774.qmail@web12402.mail.yahoo.com> --- lepus at anthrobunny.com wrote: > Paypal doesn't charge anything for you to receive > account-to-account > transfers. If you accept a credit card payment, > they keep something like > 1.9% of it for a transaction fee. But I have no account. And so we endure the evils we know than to fly to others we know not of. A CAR-PGa member in Germany would simply get US cash from his bank and send it, insured, for his Newsletter subscription. Last I checked, minimum insurance was something like 75 cents, so that is a possibility if you don't have a checking account. Paul __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com From lepus at anthrobunny.com Thu Jul 17 02:06:59 2003 From: lepus at anthrobunny.com (lepus at anthrobunny.com) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 09:06:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Broo Sustainability, Acolytes, Hel In-Reply-To: <20030716160941.60774.qmail@web12402.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 16 Jul 2003, Paul Cardwell wrote: > > --- lepus at anthrobunny.com wrote: > > > Paypal doesn't charge anything for you to receive > > account-to-account > > transfers. If you accept a credit card payment, > > they keep something like > > 1.9% of it for a transaction fee. > > But I have no account. And so we endure the evils we > know than to fly to others we know not of. Well, that's fine. "Account" in this case means "bank account", such as a checking account or savings account. Paypal works fine with either one of those. You can even just set up a Paypal debit account and put money into it when you want, from any source you want. If you really can't even get a checking or savings account, I don't think people should be buying things from you. :) -- "It's great to be known, but it's even better to be known as strange." - Chairman Takeshi Kaga From gianni at basicrps.com Thu Jul 17 02:48:36 2003 From: gianni at basicrps.com (basicrps.com) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 18:48:36 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Broo Sustainability, Acolytes, Hel References: Message-ID: <001901c34bba$1a7dd400$a94124d5@PC00218> Hello all About Broos-- The very enjoyable French rolegame called "Donjon Clefs en Main" does have Broos. Gianni webmaster of basicrps.com From ghoyle1 at airmail.net Thu Jul 17 03:44:46 2003 From: ghoyle1 at airmail.net (ghoyle1 at airmail.net) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 12:44:46 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Broo Sustainability, Acolytes, Hel In-Reply-To: <20030716160941.60774.qmail@web12402.mail.yahoo.com> References: Message-ID: <3F1548BE.7554.1BD70B7@localhost> > > --- lepus at anthrobunny.com wrote: > > > Paypal doesn't charge anything for you to receive > > account-to-account > > transfers. If you accept a credit card payment, > > they keep something like > > 1.9% of it for a transaction fee. > > But I have no account. And so we endure the evils we > know than to fly to others we know not of. No checking account? How do you cash checks, at one of those Cash Express places? Guy From carpgachair at yahoo.com Fri Jul 18 05:55:52 2003 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 12:55:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Broo Sustainability, Acolytes, Hel In-Reply-To: <3F1548BE.7554.1BD70B7@localhost> Message-ID: <20030717195552.21773.qmail@web12407.mail.yahoo.com> --- ghoyle1 at airmail.net wrote: > No checking account? How do you cash checks, at one > of those Cash > Express places? > > Guy I have one, I was referring to those who don't. However, after 70 years, I have grown a bit distrustful of unknowns who want my SS, bank account, etc. numbers. Identity theft existed back in the late Pleistocene, but it wasn't as widespread as now. Paul __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com From grogthing at yahoo.com Fri Jul 18 06:45:21 2003 From: grogthing at yahoo.com (grogthing) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 13:45:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Broo Sustainability, Acolytes, Hel In-Reply-To: <20030717195552.21773.qmail@web12407.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20030717204521.24534.qmail@web41508.mail.yahoo.com> I have no checking account. Banks have to honor drafts written on thier accounts, so I cash my checks at the bank the check is written on. Greg --- Paul Cardwell wrote: > > --- ghoyle1 at airmail.net wrote: > > No checking account? How do you cash checks, at > one > > of those Cash > > Express places? > > > > Guy > > I have one, I was referring to those who don't. > However, after 70 years, I have grown a bit > distrustful of unknowns who want my SS, bank > account, > etc. numbers. Identity theft existed back in the > late > Pleistocene, but it wasn't as widespread as now. > > Paul > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! > http://sbc.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com From ghoyle1 at airmail.net Fri Jul 18 10:58:39 2003 From: ghoyle1 at airmail.net (ghoyle1 at airmail.net) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 19:58:39 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Broo Sustainability, Acolytes, Hel In-Reply-To: <20030717195552.21773.qmail@web12407.mail.yahoo.com> References: <3F1548BE.7554.1BD70B7@localhost> Message-ID: <3F16FFEF.19916.1F600B@localhost> > > --- ghoyle1 at airmail.net wrote: > > No checking account? How do you cash checks, at one > > of those Cash > > Express places? > > > > Guy > > I have one, I was referring to those who don't. > However, after 70 years, I have grown a bit > distrustful of unknowns who want my SS, bank account, > etc. numbers. Identity theft existed back in the late > Pleistocene, but it wasn't as widespread as now. > Makes perfect sense. Guy From LKirshtein at howost.com Sat Jul 19 01:53:57 2003 From: LKirshtein at howost.com (Kirshtein, Leon) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 11:53:57 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Broo Sustainability, Acolytes, Hello Message-ID: <3156D872DCD0D411AF85000102C00AE60E7F3C6D@hosntexch01.howost.strykercorp.com> --- Simon wrote: > Does anyone use broos outside of Glorantha in other > worlds? I see them as being particularly Gloranthan. Warhammer uses beastmen, which as far as I am concerned are the same thing. "If it looks like a broo, smells like a broo, and wants to bugger you like a broo, its a broo." By the way doesn't the Wheel of Time books and the d20 game have some creatures which are very much like Broo? Leon Kirshtein From steve at perrinworlds.com Sat Jul 19 04:01:44 2003 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Steve Perrin) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 11:01:44 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Broo Sustainability, Acolytes, Hello References: <3156D872DCD0D411AF85000102C00AE60E7F3C6D@hosntexch01.howost.strykercorp.com> Message-ID: <01b401c34d56$a68b0240$f4407442@wizard> Very very very much like Broos. Then again, the goat head and horns is a devil image in any case, so Jordan may never have seen a broo... Steve Perrin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kirshtein, Leon" To: Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 8:53 AM Subject: RE: [RQ-Rules] Re: Broo Sustainability, Acolytes, Hello > By the way doesn't the Wheel of Time books and the d20 game have some > creatures which are very much like Broo? > > Leon Kirshtein > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From peter at maranci.net Sat Jul 19 05:25:20 2003 From: peter at maranci.net (Peter Maranci) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 15:25:20 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Broo, online RQ-Con? In-Reply-To: <20030718181703.732EE4C4AB@thinbits.com> References: <20030718181703.732EE4C4AB@thinbits.com> Message-ID: <2749.216.118.190.11.1058556320.squirrel@webmail> *"Steve Perrin" wrote: > Very very very much like Broos. Then again, the goat head and horns is a > devil image in any case, so Jordan may never have seen a broo... I only wish he'd never seen a typewriter. Or the Lord of the Rings. :D On a totally unrelated subject, how does an online RQ-Con sound? I don't suppose there's much chance of a real-world one ever happening again, but a bunch of RQ people discussing the system in realtime might be the next best thing. I have a chatroom that could be used for the purpose, and a number of RQ people I correspond with have expressed interest. The only hard part would be scheduling a time that worked for everyone, since we're scattered all across the globe. What do you think, sirs? ->Peter ---------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Maranci peter at maranci.net Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying!: http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm From grogthing at yahoo.com Sat Jul 19 05:35:26 2003 From: grogthing at yahoo.com (grogthing) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 12:35:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Broo, online RQ-Con? In-Reply-To: <2749.216.118.190.11.1058556320.squirrel@webmail> Message-ID: <20030718193526.61878.qmail@web41511.mail.yahoo.com> Hey that sounds fun, get an online game going? Greg --- Peter Maranci wrote: > *"Steve Perrin" wrote: > > Very very very much like Broos. Then again, the > goat head and horns is a > > devil image in any case, so Jordan may never have > seen a broo... > > I only wish he'd never seen a typewriter. Or the > Lord of the Rings. :D > > On a totally unrelated subject, how does an online > RQ-Con sound? I don't > suppose there's much chance of a real-world one ever > happening again, but > a bunch of RQ people discussing the system in > realtime might be the next > best thing. I have a chatroom that could be used for > the purpose, and a > number of RQ people I correspond with have expressed > interest. > > The only hard part would be scheduling a time that > worked for everyone, > since we're scattered all across the globe. > > What do you think, sirs? > > > ->Peter > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Peter Maranci > peter at maranci.net > Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying!: > http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com From leonbk at yahoo.com Sat Jul 19 16:13:12 2003 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 23:13:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] New adventure/module In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20030719061312.94698.qmail@web41103.mail.yahoo.com> I have added another adventure/module to my website. This is a RQ conversion of the old D&D module U3 - The Final Enemy. Enjoy. www.godlearner.d2g.com/other_things.htm ===== Leon Kirshtein www.godlearner.d2g.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com From rog_benham at hotmail.com Sun Jul 20 08:47:10 2003 From: rog_benham at hotmail.com (Roger Benham) Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2003 23:47:10 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Hello Message-ID: Coming back off a holiday and late to the debate... I run two homebrewed campaigns, I have never been enamoured of Glorantha. Its a minutiae-lawyer's paradise when it comes to cults and mythology, and I found a large amount of it trite and to say the least odd. I mean, ducks and bison burgers? There is some good stuff in there, especially in the monsters, but generally the whole Gloranthan experience left me very cold and wondering if it was some strange variant on post-apocalyptic America- bad guys wear red, chaos comes from hotspots, long years spent underground during a great sky-blackening winter producing trolls, it does make me wonder, especially when the "bronze" comes from the bones of dead gods (If I remember correctly, which I probably don't). Anyway, for those who enjoy Glorantha, go and enjoy it.  For me, I'll keep myself to my own worlds and develop them the way I want, which pleases my players, and therefore pleases me! >From: Stephen Posey >Reply-To: rq-rules at crashbox.com >To: rq-rules at crashbox.com >Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Re: Hello >Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2003 14:42:10 -0600 > >Andrew Larsen wrote: > > > > So, it seems that most of the people who have responded to my question about > > what game-world they play in don't actually play in Glorantha. Out of > > curiosity, why not? I've always felt that Glorantha was probably the > > single-best fantasy world ever created for gaming purposes > > > >I'd personally have to assign that title to Professor Barker's Tekumel, >I find it hangs together, having the feel of a real place, better than >any other invented gaming world I've ever encountered. > >No offense to Greg Stafford, I think Glorantha is an amazing and >compelling piece of work, but IMO it comes off as a bit too contrived >and shows the inside jokes and references in ways that short-circuit my >personal suspension of disbelief. > >My attraction to RQ/BRP has always been the rules, they just "make >sense" to me. > >[And, yes, I've got my flameproof underwear on ;-)] > >Stephen Posey >slposey at concentric.net >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules >http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules ------------------------------------------ Be creative - with ------------------------------------------ MSN 8 ------------------------------------------ you can use graphics and photos in your emails ------------------------------------------ --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- text/html (html body -- converted) --- From talmeta at talmeta.net Mon Jul 21 23:29:33 2003 From: talmeta at talmeta.net (Tal Meta) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 09:29:33 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Hello References: Message-ID: <3F1BEABD.4030806@talmeta.net> Andrew Larsen wrote: > So, it seems that most of the people who have responded to my question about > what game-world they play in don't actually play in Glorantha. Out of > curiosity, why not? I've always felt that Glorantha was probably the Well, I for one came into things with RQ3, which didn't have as heavy a Glorantha slant on things. What I knew of Glorantha, I first learned on the Glorantha digest, where elaborate, esoteric, and ultimately meaningless debates where, at the time, rampant. Greyhawk allowed me to express my own creativity with alot more freedom, and my own home-brew even moreso. -- talmeta at talmeta.net - Heretic, Dilettante, & God-Machine AIM - talmeta ICQ - 12594453 Homepage - Isn't it scary that doctors call what they do "practice"? From talmeta at talmeta.net Mon Jul 21 23:41:58 2003 From: talmeta at talmeta.net (Tal Meta) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 09:41:58 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Broo Sustainability, Acolytes, Hello References: <20030712221914.50830.qmail@web9605.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <3F1BEDA6.4010400@talmeta.net> Simon Phipp wrote: > Does anyone use broos outside of Glorantha in other worlds? I see them as > being particularly Gloranthan. I have used broo as a kind of demon that got 'summoned' (read, escaped onto the world through the same gate the players opened) into the wilds outside Greyhawk. In my most recent skewed campaign map, broo are among the Shadowland hordes that threaten Rokugan (I should probably post my map to my website, eventually). -- talmeta at talmeta.net - Heretic, Dilettante, & God-Machine AIM - talmeta ICQ - 12594453 Homepage - If a mime is arrested do they tell him he has the right to talk? From peter at maranci.net Wed Jul 23 05:42:36 2003 From: peter at maranci.net (Peter Maranci) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 15:42:36 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Online RQ Con Message-ID: <1559.216.118.190.11.1058902956.squirrel@webmail> It looks like at least a few RQers are up for an online RQ Con. Since we're scattered all over the world, I'm thinking that two sessions might be best, twelve hours apart - that way it should be possible for anyone who wants to to make at least one of them. Are GMT midnight on a Saturday and GMT noon on the next day (Sunday) acceptable? If they are, we might as well go ahead and do it this coming weekend. Here's a handy converter for GMT: http://greenwichmeantime.com/gmt-converter.htm Oh, and here's the chatroom. It's java-based, and doesn't require installing any software. Anonymous guest logins are fine. http://www.network54.com/Hide/Chat/92667 ->Peter ---------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Maranci peter at maranci.net Woonsocket, RI Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying!: http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm From leonbk at yahoo.com Wed Jul 23 08:59:36 2003 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 15:59:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] New adventure/module In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20030722225936.52888.qmail@web41101.mail.yahoo.com> I have added another adventure/module to my website. Sanatorius Island a restful place for the mildly disturbed. ;-) www.godlearner.d2g.com/other_things.htm ===== Leon Kirshtein www.godlearner.d2g.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com From peter at maranci.net Fri Jul 25 04:48:15 2003 From: peter at maranci.net (Peter Maranci) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 14:48:15 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Hello! and scenario outline Message-ID: <4158.216.118.190.11.1059072495.squirrel@webmail> *Andrew E. Larsen wrote: > After watching the list for a few days, I'm curious what percentage > of the list plays RQ in Glorantha and what percentage plays in > other game-world settings? I haven't had a chance to actually *play* for years, but back when I did, I'd say it was about 40/60 between Glorantha and original worlds. I loved the Glorantha of RQ2. But the Gloranthan scholars in the late 1990's instilled in me a huge dislike for the "modern" Glorantha (which has also spilled over to Hero Wars/Quest - the dislike, that is). My problem is that some part of my brain still keeps coming up with Gloranthan ideas and scenarios. Which is really annoying. For example, I've come up with a HUGE scenario - more like a campaign - which I think is pretty cool, but it's set in the Lunar Empire. Not that it matters too much, since as I mentioned before, I don't have anyone here to game with. If anyone wants the scenario, let me know and I'll send you the outline. Warning, it's pretty dark and scary - it involves a way I've worked out to force your mortal enemies to create magic items for you, and even subject themselves to terrifying medical experiments. ->Peter ---------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Maranci peter at maranci.net Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying!: http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm From slaanesh at szafir.univ.szczecin.pl Fri Jul 25 05:56:28 2003 From: slaanesh at szafir.univ.szczecin.pl (Grzegorz) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 21:56:28 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Hello! and scenario outline In-Reply-To: <4158.216.118.190.11.1059072495.squirrel@webmail> Message-ID: > I haven't had a chance to actually *play* for years, but back when I did, Excuse me? for *years*? Oh My God... > I'd say it was about 40/60 between Glorantha and original worlds. I loved > the Glorantha of RQ2. But the Gloranthan scholars in the late 1990's > instilled in me a huge dislike for the "modern" Glorantha (which has also > spilled over to Hero Wars/Quest - the dislike, that is). I am not so familiar to Glorantha, can you tell me what is it with "Glorantha scholars"? > My problem is that some part of my brain still keeps coming up with > Gloranthan ideas and scenarios. Which is really annoying. For example, > I've come up with a HUGE scenario - more like a campaign - which I think > is pretty cool, but it's set in the Lunar Empire. Not that it matters too > much, since as I mentioned before, I don't have anyone here to game with. It is said indeed :( How about an online campaing? I am certain there is at least one RQ PBeM. > If anyone wants the scenario, let me know and I'll send you the outline. > Warning, it's pretty dark and scary - it involves a way I've worked out to > force your mortal enemies to create magic items for you, and even subject > themselves to terrifying medical experiments. I loooove such scenarios :) Could you send me the outline? I will test it on my guinea.., ahem, my dear players ;) > Peter Maranci peter at maranci.net Best regards, Grzegorz http://szafir.univ.szczecin.pl/~slaanesh/ArsMagica/index.html PS. sorry for my English, I am from Poland, English here is not a native language ;p. From LKirshtein at howost.com Fri Jul 25 06:32:24 2003 From: LKirshtein at howost.com (Kirshtein, Leon) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 16:32:24 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] (no subject) Message-ID: <8129CC1E7746FA4F8C14AE7808EEAB0783D46B@hosntexch01.howost.strykercorp.com> Peter wrote: > For example, I've come up with a HUGE scenario - more like a campaign - which I think is pretty cool, but it's set in the Lunar Empire. > If anyone wants the scenario, let me know and I'll send you the outline. I would love it. I would flesh it out with stats and things and put it online. We need more RQ scenarios to keep the game going. Leon Kirshtein leonbk at yahoo.com www.goglearner.d2g.com/runequest.htm From jgould at io.com Fri Jul 25 06:51:15 2003 From: jgould at io.com (Jim Gould) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 15:51:15 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Hello! and scenario outline In-Reply-To: <4158.216.118.190.11.1059072495.squirrel@webmail> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.1.20030724154446.037dd338@webmail.io.com> At 02:48 PM 7/24/2003 -0400, you wrote: >If anyone wants the scenario, let me know and I'll send you the outline. >Warning, it's pretty dark and scary - it involves a way I've worked out to >force your mortal enemies to create magic items for you, and even subject >themselves to terrifying medical experiments. Count me in! I'd appreciate it if you could send me a copy. One of the segments of my last campaign had a "dark forces within the Lunar Empire" bit that worked out very well. It would be great to incorporate your ideas (i.e. blatantly steal) into my current campaign, as they have a significant probability of drifting that way. They're currently attempting to assist Jar-Eel in destroying the Pharaoh, although they don't know that yet. :) -- "Dammit" Jim Gould jgould at io.com http://www.io.com/~jgould http://www.britanniamanor.org "Bigamy is having one wife too many. Monogamy is the same" -Oscar Wilde From jurrubin at earthlink.net Fri Jul 25 08:31:55 2003 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 17:31:55 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Hello! and scenario outline Message-ID: <4346852.1059093116397.JavaMail.nobody@rowlf.psp.pas.earthlink.net> *raises and waves hand frantically* Oh! That sounds truly evil. I LIKE that in a gamer! Could I have a copy, pretty please? My group of players new to RQ are truly gifted in optimizing their characters and I feel the need to keep things challenge. And I'm not quite ready to kick off my Ragnarok. David Smart -------Original Message------- From: Peter Maranci Sent: 07/24/03 01:48 PM To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Hello! and scenario outline > > *Andrew E. Larsen wrote: > After watching the list for a few days, I'm curious what percentage > of the list plays RQ in Glorantha and what percentage plays in > other game-world settings? I haven't had a chance to actually *play* for years, but back when I did, I'd say it was about 40/60 between Glorantha and original worlds. I loved the Glorantha of RQ2. But the Gloranthan scholars in the late 1990's instilled in me a huge dislike for the "modern" Glorantha (which has also spilled over to Hero Wars/Quest - the dislike, that is). My problem is that some part of my brain still keeps coming up with Gloranthan ideas and scenarios. Which is really annoying. For example, I've come up with a HUGE scenario - more like a campaign - which I think is pretty cool, but it's set in the Lunar Empire. Not that it matters too much, since as I mentioned before, I don't have anyone here to game with. If anyone wants the scenario, let me know and I'll send you the outline. Warning, it's pretty dark and scary - it involves a way I've worked out to force your mortal enemies to create magic items for you, and even subject themselves to terrifying medical experiments. ->Peter ---------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Maranci peter at maranci.net Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying!: http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From LKirshtein at howost.com Fri Jul 25 22:22:41 2003 From: LKirshtein at howost.com (Kirshtein, Leon) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 08:22:41 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Hello! and scenario outline Message-ID: <8129CC1E7746FA4F8C14AE7808EEAB0783D46C@hosntexch01.howost.strykercorp.com> >If anyone wants the scenario, let me know and I'll send you the outline. In the past we have done some things together on this list there various people have taken a piece of a project and worked on it. Why don't we do this for this scenario. If Peter would be kind enough to post his outline, we can have various people develop sections of it, and then we can bring it all together. If think this could be fun and a good exercise of seeing how various people play the game. Leon Kirshtein From andrew at crashbox.com Sat Jul 26 04:00:27 2003 From: andrew at crashbox.com (Andrew O. Mellinger) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 11:00:27 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Server Maintenance 7/26 Message-ID: Periodically and for varying lengths of time on 7/26 the server hosting the rq-rules list will be unailable during a server upgrade. The switch shouldn't take too long. I apologize for any inconvenience. -Andrew -- From aelarsen at mac.com Sat Jul 26 06:17:22 2003 From: aelarsen at mac.com (Andrew Larsen) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 15:17:22 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: RQ-Rules digest, Vol 1 #187 - 15 msgs In-Reply-To: <20030725181703.9F42F4C4AD@thinbits.com> Message-ID: > On a totally unrelated subject, how does an online RQ-Con sound? I don't > suppose there's much chance of a real-world one ever happening again, but > a bunch of RQ people discussing the system in realtime might be the next > best thing. I have a chatroom that could be used for the purpose, and a > number of RQ people I correspond with have expressed interest. I like the idea, although I probably won't be available on weekends in the near future. I think the idea of an actual real world RQ Con is a good idea too. > From: grogthing > Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Broo, online RQ-Con? > To: rq-rules at crashbox.com > Reply-To: rq-rules at crashbox.com > > Hey that sounds fun, get an online game going? I like that idea as well. >>From: Peter Maranci >> >> I'd say it was about 40/60 between Glorantha and original worlds. I loved >> the Glorantha of RQ2. But the Gloranthan scholars in the late 1990's >> instilled in me a huge dislike for the "modern" Glorantha (which has also >> spilled over to Hero Wars/Quest - the dislike, that is). >I am not so familiar to Glorantha, can you tell me what is it with "Glorantha >scholars"? The Gloranthan scholars are the die-hard Glorantha-philes of the Glorantha digest. They've produced an enormous amount of information on Glorantha, and a lot of it is excellent work, but there's a tendency for them to be very rigid about what has been established as 'Gloranthan orthodoxy'. Some of the members of the list have a tendency to solve debates by saying "I'm right because I wrote it this way" and using that stance to prevent disagreement. My problem with that list is not so much the scholars as their insistance on revising established information and establishing a type of religious relativism that makes it impossible to actually say anything truly definitive about any Glorantha deity. I'm just too much a fan of the old RQ Monomyth to like that approach. Peter Maranci again: >Not that it matters too >much, since as I mentioned before, I don't have anyone here to game with. Good God, man! How can you stand living so far from civilization? Seriously, though, where do you live that you're isolated from gamers? >From: "Kirshtein, Leon" >>If anyone wants the scenario, let me know and I'll send you the outline. >In the past we have done some things together on this list there various >people have taken a piece of a project and worked on it. Why don't we do >this for this scenario. If Peter would be kind enough to post his outline, >we can have various people develop sections of it, and then we can bring it >all together. If think this could be fun and a good exercise of seeing how >various people play the game. An interesting idea. Let's go for it. Andrew E. Larsen From andrew at crashbox.com Tue Jul 29 03:51:12 2003 From: andrew at crashbox.com (Andrew O. Mellinger) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 10:51:12 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] [ADMIN] Test Message-ID: Nothing to see here, move along. -- From andrew at crashbox.com Tue Jul 29 03:53:51 2003 From: andrew at crashbox.com (Andrew O. Mellinger) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 10:53:51 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] [ADMIN] New Server! Sorry, about that... Message-ID: So we moved to a new server over the weekend, a nice 1.8 Ghz Athlon with a gig of RAM. I'm sooo happy! Anyway, I didn't have the configuration quite right on the box, so any posts since Saturday were foobared. Sorry. Fixed now... Back to your regular scheduled programming... -Andrew -- From kruch7 at cox.net Tue Jul 29 03:58:51 2003 From: kruch7 at cox.net (Joseph Elric Smith Mormon minion of Arioch) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:58:51 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] [ADMIN] New Server! Sorry, about that... References: Message-ID: <012101c35531$e7124ac0$1108a8c0@kenneith93j41k> darn and that was when I had posted my most creative stuff and now I forgot what I posted LOL ken Gygax is to Gaming what Kirby was to comics Alas poor Elric I was a thousand times more evil than you http://www.geocities.com/J_Elric_Smith/Index.html ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew O. Mellinger" To: Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 1:53 PM Subject: [RQ-Rules] [ADMIN] New Server! Sorry, about that... > So we moved to a new server over the weekend, a nice 1.8 Ghz Athlon > with a gig of RAM. I'm sooo happy! Anyway, I didn't have the > configuration quite right on the box, so any posts since Saturday > were foobared. Sorry. > > Fixed now... > > Back to your regular scheduled programming... > > -Andrew > -- > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From peter at maranci.net Tue Jul 29 03:59:02 2003 From: peter at maranci.net (Peter Maranci) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:59:02 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] So do we need to repost? Message-ID: <2055.216.118.190.11.1059415142.squirrel@webmail> >...any posts since Saturday were foobared. Um...does that mean they're gone? Do I need to re-send the scenario outline? Fortunately I have it backed up! ->Peter ---------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Maranci peter at maranci.net Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying!: http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm From andrew at crashbox.com Tue Jul 29 04:18:29 2003 From: andrew at crashbox.com (Andrew O. Mellinger) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 11:18:29 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] So do we need to repost? In-Reply-To: <2055.216.118.190.11.1059415142.squirrel@webmail> References: <2055.216.118.190.11.1059415142.squirrel@webmail> Message-ID: Yes, unfortunately yes. There was a non-existent script in the pipe that dumped contents... Once again, sorry. Andrew > >...any posts since Saturday were foobared. > >Um...does that mean they're gone? Do I need to re-send the scenario outline? > >Fortunately I have it backed up! > > ->Peter >---------------------------------------------------------------- >Peter Maranci peter at maranci.net >Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying!: http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm > > >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules >http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules -- From bick10 at comcast.net Tue Jul 29 04:21:42 2003 From: bick10 at comcast.net (bick10 at comcast.net) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 18:21:42 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] So do we need to repost? Message-ID: <20030728182912.F2735334C3@boomstick.screwheads.net> > >...any posts since Saturday were foobared. > > Um...does that mean they're gone? Do I need to re-send the scenario outline? As it never hit my mailbox, I am betting you do. > Fortunately I have it backed up! Glad for that. Hate it when I fail to... Jim Bickmeyer From peter at maranci.net Tue Jul 29 04:25:56 2003 From: peter at maranci.net (Peter Maranci) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 14:25:56 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Scenario Outline: A Breath of Evil Message-ID: <2787.216.118.190.11.1059416756.squirrel@webmail> This is a re-post, since the first one was apparently lost. I've been trying to recover the extensive notes I had for this scenario, but without much luck; I know I emailed some of them to one or two people a while ago, but there are so many emails in my sent box that it's virtually impossible to find them. I've been working on rewriting them, but that will take time. Even the partial re-creation may be too large to post here, so instead here's a synopsis. I can provide more details as needed. I've put some notes in []'s, indicating some of the areas that need expansion - but any expansion would be appreciated. Oh, perhaps I should put a SPOILER warning here. Incidentally, I'm thinking of eventually writing this up in non-Gloranthan form (if possible) as a novel. A BREATH OF EVIL Setting: The Lunar Empire Time: During a period of struggle with the Orlanthi Difficulty: High to very high Party Composition: Any (Lunars and non-Lunars are acceptable, along with any species). The PCs need not all know each other prior to the campaign. Obviously, they must be able to function in Lunar society, i.e. no "Foul spawn of Chaos...". The PCs are arrested and interviewed by a disguised high official in the Lunar hierarchy, who wants to hire them to investigate a disturbing situation. A minor young Lunar noble, formerly a nobody, suddenly reappeared a year ago and has cut a huge swathe through the Imperial Court. His wealth and influence are staggering, and seem to be largely based on military contracts; he has an apparently inexhaustible supply of powerful magic items, many of them obviously non-Lunar in origin (and almost all of them new, though this may not be common knowledge). The source of these items is unknown. Some members of the Court are concerned that he may be using God Learner techniques, but his influence is such that any investigation of the young noble must be kept separate from normal intelligence channels and groups. Some Lunar agents have already disappeared. Thus the employer is hiring the PCs as a completely independent group. Their only contact is to be him, through a [colorful NPC] intermediary. He'll give them what help he can without exposing himself. The reward, of course, will be generous. Several angles of initial investigation are possible. One is the Bureau of Records, which reveals that the young noble [name?] has been recently given a high (honorary) military rank, and has two crack Imperial regiments [what size are regiments?] assigned to his personal control. He also owns several large estates, including a luxury estate in the capitol and two large areas in a desolate and forbidden zone. The secret lies in the two areas. The young noble is associated with an insane magician-scientist (think of Dr. Mengele) [name?] who has worked out a way to force powerful prisoners of war to voluntarily create magic items on command, even to the point of utterly using up their own souls. They will also voluntarily subject themselves to unbelievable magical experimentation, without ever resorting to Divine Intervention. As a result, the camp where they are held includes quite a few hideous monsters, the products of the Mad Scientist's experiments. The camp is a place of absolute horror. It is guarded by one of the regiments, as much to keep the monsters in as to keep trespassers out. Less than a hundred kilometers from the first camp lies a second camp. Conditions in the second camp are very different indeed: it is a comparatively pleasant place, with food, music, and education for the many women and children there. These are the families and dependants of the captives of Camp One [note: need names for camps, something beautiful-sounding but chilling]. This camp is also guarded by a regiment. Why don't the prisoners of Camp One ever try to rescue the internees of Camp Two, for example by Divine Intervention? Because Camp Two is built in a Convergence, an ancient area where no god nor magic may operate in any way. In fact, should someone die there, it is almost certain that their soul would be extinguished as well. The prisoners of Camp One are held hostage by the threat to the souls of their loved ones in Camp Two. Other notes: 1. Unknown to the prisoners of Camp One, the children in Camp Two are being indoctrinated into the Lunar Way. 2. There have been some strange effects on the lifeforms in and near the Convergence. Life without magic has caused them to change strangely; some make far more efficient use of magic due to the decreased level of magic in the borders. Such life forms, brought into the normal magic-rich area, can display highly dangerous and unpredictable powers. 3. The Hunter is an NPC who lives hidden in the borders of the Convergences. A wild man of sorts, he has learned how to hunt and kill the beasts of that area without magic. He has also managed to avoid being caught by Lunar troops, who aren't searching for him in any case. A demihero at least, he may be willing to help the PCs. 4. Camp One is surrounded by monsters. These include at least one victim of a soul-controlling spell invented by the Mad Scientist, in which he removes the little finger from the left hand and has the finger bone specially polished and prepared for enchantment. The victim then enchants their *entire* soul (all their POW, in other words) into the bone. If successful, they become physically almost indestructible - but also the complete slave of the holder of the finger bone. A high-level Orlanthi or Humakti victim of this spell is used by the Mad Scientist as a personal guard; he find this amusing. Not all the monsters are derived from human or sapient stock, since the Scientist also works with animals and spirits. [It should be possible to dream up some amazing and truly bizarre monsters here...] 5. Medical Secrets. The Scientist has learned a number of horrible and powerful magical secrets from his research, some of which have been used by the young noble to heal or help certain highly-placed Lunar officials and their families - who have repaid him with gifts and gratitude. Unknown to some of these officials is that the diseases from which they were cured were also the creations of the Mad Scientist. 6. The Mad Scientist's investigations *do* come terribly close to God Learnerism. A visit from the Gift Carriers of the Sending Gods is not out of the question. 7. The head of the Lunar contingent at Camp Two is an honorable man, and is troubled by the situation. His faith is also suffering from the long period of living in an area totally free of gods, apparently without serious harm. 8. History of the Scientist: A high Lunar noble himself long ago, he was the victim of a terrible chaos accident which drove him insane. His resulting random murder spree included a number of Lunar nobles and their families, although not for political reasons. As a result he cannot appear in Lunar society himself. His meeting with the young noble was fortuitous; the noble is his representative in Lunar society. The relationship has been fairly stable so far, neither dominating the other. This is partly because the two don't interact much. At some point the young noble may become uncomfortable with the Scientist, and seek to have him eliminated... The Scientist has snow-white hair and golden irises. He dresses in white and wears a high collar. He has three assistants who dress as he does, but in red. More details on the past life of the Scientist, including a rival and a fiancee, are probably more than is needed for the scenario. ->Peter ---------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Maranci peter at maranci.net Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying!: http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm From peter at maranci.net Tue Jul 29 04:34:06 2003 From: peter at maranci.net (Peter Maranci) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 14:34:06 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] RQ Con Online - New Venue? Message-ID: <1230.216.118.190.11.1059417246.squirrel@webmail> RQ Con Online #1 has come and gone. Apparently some people had problems getting into the chatroom; I'm told they got error messages. We still had fun, though. That said, I'd like to move it to a more accessible venue. Does anyone have any suggestions? It needs to be something dependable and not too hard to use. I'm considering moving it to IRC, but that's "old-internet", and I'm afraid that some people won't know how to IRC. I could put up a webpage with instructions on IRC and a link to a decent program, but that would still mean that people would have to install the program; I don't know how willing people will be to do that. Another issue is time. I scheduled it for midnight GMT Saturday and noon GMT Sunday to give everyone in the world the best chance to make at least one session without having to stay up all night or miss work; can anyone suggest a better time? Feedback would be appreciated! ->Peter ---------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Maranci peter at maranci.net Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying!: http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm From peter at maranci.net Tue Jul 29 05:00:43 2003 From: peter at maranci.net (Peter Maranci) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 15:00:43 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Hello! and scenario outline Message-ID: <2839.216.118.190.11.1059418843.squirrel@webmail> *Grzegorz wrote: PMaranci>> I haven't had a chance to actually *play* for years, but PMaranci>> back when I did, >Excuse me? for *years*? Oh My God... *Andrew Larsen wrote: >Good God, man! How can you stand living so far from civilization? >Seriously, though, where do you live that you're isolated from gamers? I used to live in the Boston area, but had to move to Woonsocket, Rhode Island a few years ago - about 60 miles from my old stomping grounds. I also got married and our son was born in the interim, which makes it hard to have any free time. At one point it looked as if I'd finally got a group together of local people who were willing to try RuneQuest and meet at my house, but one of them never showed up, and another kept cancelling over and over at the last minute for various reasons. Finally, just two hours before our first session, he emailed and dropped out permanently. That killed the group. To have come so close, SO CLOSE after all those years and then to have it snatched away...well, you can just imagine how I felt. I even momentarily considered closing down my website and trying to forget about roleplaying altogether! It's pretty damned hard to keep a website going for a hobby that you haven't been able to practice for years... Incidentally, Andrew, you were a lot more diplomatic in your description of the Gloranthan scholars than I would be. "A bunch of arrogant wankers" would be the *mildest* term I could use for them. I still bristle when I hear the word "codswallop". :D I prefer the Monomyth, too. Okay, that's the last post from me today. :D ->Peter ---------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Maranci peter at maranci.net Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying!: http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm From leonbk at yahoo.com Tue Jul 29 09:11:14 2003 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:11:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Scenario Outline: A Breath of Evil In-Reply-To: <2787.216.118.190.11.1059416756.squirrel@webmail> Message-ID: <20030728231114.86097.qmail@web41108.mail.yahoo.com> --- Peter Maranci wrote: > Several angles of initial investigation are > possible. One is the Bureau of > Records, which reveals that the young noble [name?] > has been recently > given a high (honorary) military rank, and has two > crack Imperial > regiments [what size are regiments?] assigned to his > personal control. A Lunar regiment is about 1000 men. This number is far too large to control just 2 camps. IMO a small army of 200 should do the job. > to force powerful prisoners of war to > voluntarily create magic > items on command, even to the point of utterly using > up their own souls. How many prisoners are we talking about here? Considering the fact that 'powerful' prisoners = at least Acolyte status, I am not sure you can get enough together to really set something like this up. There should probably be some other way to drain their power (with their consent) with the prisoners actually doing the enchantments. > without ever resorting to Divine Intervention. Slave bracelets are a quick way to prevent DIs. > Why don't the prisoners of Camp One ever try to > rescue the internees of > Camp Two, for example by Divine Intervention? Or, they are not initiates, otherwise they would be in Camp One. > Because Camp Two is built in > a Convergence, an ancient area where no god nor > magic may operate in any > way. In fact, should someone die there, it is almost > certain that their > soul would be extinguished as well. Great concept, but I think this needs to be in Camp One. It is a good way to keep the prisoner in check and prevent their souls to reach their deities in case of "accidental" deaths. > The prisoners of Camp One are held > hostage by the threat to the souls of their loved > ones in Camp Two. This would only work if they could convince the prisoners in Camp One that no soul, from ether Camp, would ever be sent to their gods, unless they comply. > 1. Unknown to the prisoners of Camp One, the > children in Camp Two are being indoctrinated into the Lunar Way. This would be assumed by everyone anyway and is not much of a secret. All together some really great ideas, but need a few adjustments. Leon Kirshtein __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Tue Jul 29 18:04:49 2003 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 09:04:49 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Scenario Outline: A Breath of Evil Message-ID: A couple of suggestions that occur in light of Leon's comments (and I'd likely be using this in a non-Gloranthan setting, just so that's clear)... >> Several angles of initial investigation are >> possible. One is the Bureau of >> Records, which reveals that the young noble [name?] >> has been recently >> given a high (honorary) military rank, and has two >> crack Imperial >> regiments [what size are regiments?] assigned to his >> personal control. > >A Lunar regiment is about 1000 men. This number is far >too large to control just 2 camps. IMO a small army >of 200 should do the job. How about he has been assigned nominal authority over these two legions, and has been requesting staff from them? This gives a military investigation angle (where have these Maniples been going, will others from the legions know anything and even if they do, will they say anything?), but allows the GM freedom to decide excatly how many troops are present at the Camps. This also means that the young noble can exercise some discretion and control over the scale of security risk the Lunar Troops represent to his operation: 2000 men would be an _awful_ lot to expect to keep secrets on this scale IMO. >> to force powerful prisoners of war to >> voluntarily create magic >> items on command, even to the point of utterly using >> up their own souls. > >How many prisoners are we talking about here? >Considering the fact that 'powerful' prisoners = at >least Acolyte status, I am not sure you can get enough >together to really set something like this up. There >should probably be some other way to drain their power >(with their consent) with the prisoners actually doing >the enchantments. Not to mention variations on Slave Bracelets that allow other people to be drained of power (A Rune Lord isn't much use, but if you have a Priest as well, then the Rune Lord is a decent sized battery of POW)... >> without ever resorting to Divine Intervention. > >Slave bracelets are a quick way to prevent DIs. Yes, but I think the Camps also need screening from Divination as well, otherwise why hasn't someone got a clue what's going on that way that way? >> Why don't the prisoners of Camp One ever try to >> rescue the internees of >> Camp Two, for example by Divine Intervention? > >Or, they are not initiates, otherwise they would be in >Camp One. > >> Because Camp Two is built in >> a Convergence, an ancient area where no god nor >> magic may operate in any >> way. In fact, should someone die there, it is almost >> certain that their >> soul would be extinguished as well. > >Great concept, but I think this needs to be in Camp >One. It is a good way to keep the prisoner in check >and prevent their souls to reach their deities in case >of "accidental" deaths. Actually, I think the whole thing works better if BOTH Camps are influenced by the Convergence - Put Camp One on edge of the Convergence area (so DI and Divination are scrambled, but effects are not so weird that they panic the rank and file Lunar soldiers and the magical construction work is relatively unaffected) and put Camp Two further in for the reasons Pete outlined... and because our Dr Menegele figure will probably be fascinated to watch a generation of Lunar children grow up in a God-Free zone (and may well be investigating that phenomenon as well)... > >> The prisoners of Camp One are held >> hostage by the threat to the souls of their loved >> ones in Camp Two. > >This would only work if they could convince the >prisoners in Camp One that no soul, from ether Camp, >would ever be sent to their gods, unless they comply. See my above comments about putting both Camps in the Convergence (ASIDE: Hmm, anyone else seen a weird eastern European (Andrei Tarkovsky?) SF film called (IIRC) The Zone? What if even Camp two isn't at the heart of the Convergence, what if there is something ELSE there?) >> 1. Unknown to the prisoners of Camp One, the >> children in Camp Two are being indoctrinated into >>the Lunar Way. > >This would be assumed by everyone anyway and is not >much of a secret. I agree with Leon (in fact, that they would rather convert the kids than anything else would be about the only hope one could have, I would have thought)... There is some _huge_ potential here. Both in further layers of back-story, and as I alluded to above, in the variety of approaches. You could have characters as Lunar military investigators, you could imply all sorts of things about the Convergence (what caused it, what effects it is having etc)... Hope there is something useful in my comments, I will ponder further and post anything else I think useful. Cheers, Nick Middleton From LKirshtein at howost.com Wed Jul 30 02:20:51 2003 From: LKirshtein at howost.com (Kirshtein, Leon) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 12:20:51 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Scenario Outline: A Breath of Evil Message-ID: <8129CC1E7746FA4F8C14AE7808EEAB0783D496@hosntexch01.howost.strykercorp.com> Nick wrote: >What if even Camp two isn't at the heart of the Convergence, what if there is something ELSE there In fact that 'something ELSE' should be the source of the Convergence and make everything else in this area possible. I propose the following a chunk of 'True Stone', solid LAW, fused with a chunk of Warp Stone, solid CHAOS. Now in most cases the two would just cancel each other out (mater - anti mater anyone?), but with Chaos all things are possible and this did not happen. Now since this is happening inside the Lunar Empire the stone may have been unearthed then the Red Goddess ripped a chunk of earth to create the Red Moon and ascend to the heavens. It has taken some time for someone to find it, but now it is in the hands of someone who has the knowledge and the will to use it. We may also wish to make it sentient, but at a very high level, and probably insane due to the very nature of its improbable existence, part law part chaos but not in balance. This insanity would probably be contagious over a period of time to everyone with in the Convergence and the source of peoples willingness to give up ones souls in order to achieve a more balanced state. It would not work on anyone who is Illuminated, thus the mad scientist and the young noble are safe, but others are not. This would also mean what the troops would have to be rotated very frequently, which would explain the large number needed. I got some other ideas on this, but I do not have the time to expand on them at the moment. I will try to do so later tonight. Leon Kirshtein