Babyl Options: Append:1 Version:5 Reformat-Headers-P Summary-Window-Format: Use Default  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA18916; Wed, 2 Jun 93 10:54:34 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25567; Wed, 2 Jun 93 11:54:40 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 2 Jun 93 11:54:42 EDT From: "Loren Miller" To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: list and time Date: 2 Jun 93 11:52:07 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <72C2607F6E@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Two things. First, it seems that the mailing list is back on line. Hurrah! Second, John J Medway wrote: >Has anyone collected any statistics on how long characters of >point value X take to create, under RQ4? Too long. I think it will be better with proper arrangement and formatting, but then RQ3 was not exactly a speedy character generation system, and it didn't even give the players a choice. Anyway, after their first character players were able to make new characters in 30 minutes. Though this isn't great, it's just barely acceptable. -- +++++++++++++++++++++++23 Loren Miller LOREN@wmkt.wharton.upenn.edu There's a thin line between TQM and Mutiny  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA28089; Wed, 2 Jun 93 14:15:58 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA04023; Wed, 2 Jun 93 15:16:00 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 2 Jun 93 15:16:03 EDT From: mabeyke@batman.b11.ingr.com (boris) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Strike Rank Breakpoints (fwd) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 93 14:17:41 CDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <761DF559A6@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> This seemed to get lost the last time I sent it, so let's try again now that the list seems to be working. Well, I'll try to start a thread here. As Nick Brooke reminded us in today's (5/19/93) RQ Daily, the current SR system has awkward stat based breakpoints, among other problems. Now, one possible fix for this is the alternate SR system proposed by George Harris on the net last year. In anyone hasn't seen that, I'll include it here. Skip on down for further discussion if you're familiar with it. <<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: gharris@jade.tufts.edu (George W. Harris) Subject: RQ: Changes to the Strike Rank Calculation Method Date: 13 Aug 92 12:06:26 GMT As most of you probably know, when one attacks with a melee or missile weapon and when a spell takes effect are in a large part determined by one's Dex and Siz strike rank modifiers. The underlying assumtion of this mechanic is that the more dextrous one is the sooner one acts, and the larger one is the quicker one lands a blow in melee. I am not going to contest these assumtions, but rather try and streamline how they are implemented. Characteristic Dex Strike Siz Strike Rank Modifier Rank Modifier 1-5 5 4 6-9 4 3 10-15 3 2 16-19 2 1 20+ 1 0 Ordinarily, when one is using a missile weapon (or casting a spell), one acts on Dex Strike Rank (plus the magic points in the spell), and when one is using a melee weapon, one acts on the sum of Dex Strike Rank and Siz Strike Rank and Weapon Strike Rank. These are the main uses of the Dex/Siz Strike Rank table. However, there are two things that should strike you about this table: One: It is not an even progression. The steps alternate in size between four and six, rather than being a constant five. Two: Siz Strike Rank alone is never used for anything, but is only used in conjunction with Dex Strike Rank. The first item is easy to fix. Just make the intervals 1-4, 5-9, 10-14, 15-19, 20+. As for the second, I propose replacing the Siz Strike Rank column with a combined Dex+Siz Strike Rank column to be used for figuring melee strike rank. As the table stands, someone with a Dex 10 and Siz 10 would have a melee strike rank of 5. However, someone with Dex 9 and Siz 11 would have a melee strike rank of 6, as would someone with Dex 11 and Siz 9. Since, the way the system is structured, Siz and Dex are equally important in figuring melee strike rank, this result doesn't seem proper. Therefore, I propose using the following table for figuring melee strike rank: Combined Siz+Dex Melee Strike Rank 2-4 9 5-9 8 10-14 7 15-19 6 20-24 5 25-29 4 30-34 3 35-39 2 40+ 1 The advantages of this table are that it eliminates the standard optimal breakpoints for Siz and Dex, and also regularizes the progression. One could complain that it is undesirable for a table to use the sum of two characteristics, but as the damage bonus table already does this, that objection doesn't stand. Of course, one would still use the Dex Strike Rank table to figure strike ranks for spells and missile weapons. -- "If you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce, they taste more like prunes than rhubarb does." -Groucho Marx gharris@jade.tufts.edu George Harris, Tufts Univ. Dept. of Mathematics <<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now, my group and myself have been using this rule for a while now, and it works well with one correction. With the normal human range of SIZ, everything is copacetic, but if you start using this with trolls, giants, and scorpionmen, those with SIZ>>20 pose the following problem. If the creatures DEX SR is less than their SIZ SR in the old system, the new will give them a melee SR less than their DEX SR. In other words, they could hit with a maul before they could throw an axe. This is fixed by just ruling that any SIZ > 20 uses SIZ=20 in the Melee SR table. In this case, their Melee SR would equal their DEX SR, which gives the same result as the current system. With this fix, this system works well, and eliminates the tendancy for all fighters to be at SIZ16, DEX16, or some such. -- Boris Mikey, aka |"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive Maurice Beyke | for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if mabeyke@ingr.com | you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." Intergraph doesn't want Nietzsche my opinions.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA28715; Wed, 2 Jun 93 14:32:03 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA04788; Wed, 2 Jun 93 15:32:08 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 2 Jun 93 15:32:09 EDT From: Pierre.Boulet@lip.ens-lyon.fr (Pierre Boulet) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: bargain/character sheets Date: Wed, 2 Jun 93 21:31:45 +0200 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <7662EB5047@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> I have players who love bargaining. But it is not explained how two people bargain versus each other in my copy of the draft 2.0. How do you handle this in your campaign? Perhaps the one with the higher level of success wins the bargain, if the two have the same level, they propose other prices ?... On another subject, I have made RQ4 character sheets and have them available in postscript. I can post them or upload them to soda.berkeley.edu if enough people are interested. There two drawbacks: they are in French and in A4 format. I also use the more detailed armor system inspired by Harnmaster proposed a while ago in the digest that I find adding a flavour to combats without too much complexity. If enough people want, I can translate them in english. o------------------------------------------------------------------o | __ _ | | /__/ . _ _ _ _ /_/ _ / _ /- | | / / /_'/ / /_' /__/ /_/ /_/ / /_'/ pboulet@lip.ens-lyon.fr | | | | (* Reality is for those who can't face Science Fiction *) | o------------------------------------------------------------------o  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA08418; Wed, 2 Jun 93 17:59:32 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA12783; Wed, 2 Jun 93 18:59:34 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 2 Jun 93 18:59:37 EDT From: Tim Posney To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RQ4: Time and the Great Compromise Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1993 08:58:55 +1000 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <79D8660404@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> I have started a new group of players and character creation under RQIV took over 1/2 an hour each character. That was with me telling them what to take. I suspect that the condensed form of the rules s part of the problem. In the final version there will be a lot of narrative type text, much as in RQIII. This should make it easier for people to generate. The way the rules are now though, it would be extremely tough for a new character to make sensible choices of skill, and would take an extremely long time.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA09468; Wed, 2 Jun 93 18:30:59 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA13632; Wed, 2 Jun 93 19:31:03 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 2 Jun 93 19:31:04 EDT From: JOVANOVIC@CUCCFA.CCC.COLUMBIA.EDU To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: RE: list and time Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1993 19:31:23 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <7A5E04613B@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Hm, on the off chance this will get thru - John, et. al., the next version of previous experience should be much, much faster - a few significant improvements have seen to this - if this message gets through, I'll post a summary of what I think the next version might look like. Oliver  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA09816; Wed, 2 Jun 93 18:44:36 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA14006; Wed, 2 Jun 93 19:44:43 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 2 Jun 93 19:44:44 EDT From: JOVANOVIC@CUCCFA.CCC.COLUMBIA.EDU To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: SR, etc. Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1993 19:45:19 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <7A991A5228@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Loren, congrats, looks like the list is up and working. I'll try to post an example of the previous experience revision tomorrow. As for SR, I find George (and Maurice's) proposal appealing, other than the problem it has with extremes of SIZ (and DEX). If you use the table he proposes, but with the caveat that SIZ and DEX above 20 doesn't count, the problem goes away. Extremes of DEX have a similar problem - a jelmre with a 30 DEX and 6 SIZ will strike far too quickly in melee without a similar limitation on DEX. In other words: DEX Missile/Spell SR 1-4 5 5-9 4 10-14 3 15-19 2 20+ 1 DEX + SIZ Melee SR (count only the first 20 points of each) 2-4 9 5-9 8 10-14 7 15-19 6 20-24 5 25-29 4 30-34 3 35-39 2 40 1 Let me know what you think. Oliver  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA28091; Thu, 3 Jun 93 10:02:58 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA00725; Thu, 3 Jun 93 11:03:00 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Thu, 3 Jun 93 11:03:03 EDT From: mc@cp.dias.ie To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: bargain/character sheets Date: Thu, 3 Jun 93 13:47:37 BST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <89E6FF6234@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> > > > I have players who love bargaining. But it is not explained how two > people bargain versus each other in my copy of the draft 2.0. How do > you handle this in your campaign? > Perhaps the one with the higher level of success wins the bargain, > if the two have the same level, they propose other prices ?... > > On another subject, I have made RQ4 character sheets and have them available > in postscript. I can post them or upload them to soda.berkeley.edu if > enough people are interested. There two drawbacks: they are in French > and in A4 format. I also use the more detailed armor system inspired by > Harnmaster proposed a while ago in the digest that I find adding a flavour > to combats without too much complexity. If enough people want, I can > translate them in english. > > o------------------------------------------------------------------o > | __ _ | > | /__/ . _ _ _ _ /_/ _ / _ /- | > | / / /_'/ / /_' /__/ /_/ /_/ / /_'/ pboulet@lip.ens-lyon.fr | > | | > | (* Reality is for those who can't face Science Fiction *) | > o------------------------------------------------------------------o > Please do, Pierre. A translation would be useful. I presume that you've managed to fit all the new (and somewhat unnecessary) skills onto the sheet. As for the bargaining dilemma, I usually ignore the rolls for such interaction as just go by the role-playing. I play the high Bargain% characters as savvy and shrewd, the low Bargain% ones as ignorant or pigheaded. I suppose that a straight comparison of the two skills involved would be sufficient. The higher skill should come out ahead, perhaps by no more than an amount equal to the difference between the two competing skills. Myles.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA20991; Thu, 3 Jun 93 18:12:01 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA19797; Thu, 3 Jun 93 19:11:51 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Thu, 3 Jun 93 19:12:08 EDT From: JOVANOVIC@CUCCFA.CCC.COLUMBIA.EDU To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Character generation Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1993 19:13:28 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <920D3B33E1@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Here's a very rough sketch of a current idea for previous experience - the basic system, recommended for generating characters quickly or for beginning players. It gives you nearly as much choice as the pointing system, but is much, much faster. Creating An Adventurer a) Pick species (recommend humans to start). b) Roll characteristics (exact details depends on species). c) Pick culture (affects equipment, weapon use, choice of profession, magic and religion). d) Pick profession (determines social status), 1) Basic system - Pick a profession, write down the basic skills for that profession, pick the listed number of optional skills (this number is based on the usefulness, perks, and social status of the profession). If the GM allows, you can trade two optional skill choices for one from another profession. 2) Point system - Point based, similar to draft 2.0 but streamlined. e) Add skill and cultural modifier bonuses to skills to get final skills. f) Pick spells (a certain number based on your level for the basic system). g) Start with equipment and wealth based on profession and culture (i.e. Pelorian soldier - scimitar, shield, etc.). The new templates look something like this (please note that the point costs and base cost are now in a smaller font and italicized, so that they don't stand out as much as they do here): CRAFTER Trained Competent Expert Master BASIC SKILLS Base (Pts.) Base (Pts.) Base (Pts.) Base (Pts.) Craft 45% 2 60% 4 75% 8 90% 16 Craft 30% 1 45% 2 60% 4 75% 8 Evaluate 45% 2 60% 4 75% 8 90% 16 Attack 30% 1 45% 2 Parry 30% 1 45% 2 BASE COST 5 10 22 44 OPTIONAL SKILLS (8) Base Base Base Base Bargain 45% 4 60% 8 75% 16 90% 32 Conceal 45% 2 60% 4 75% 8 90% 16 Craft 45% 2 60% 4 75% 8 90% 16 Custom 45% 1 60% 2 75% 4 90% 8 Devise 45% 4 60% 8 75% 16 90% 32 Instruct 45% 4 60% 8 75% 16 75% 16 Human Lore 45% 2 60% 4 75% 8 90% 16 Lore 45% 1 60% 2 75% 4 90% 8 Pick Lock 45% 1 60% 2 75% 4 90% 8 Set Trap 45% 1 60% 2 75% 4 90% 8 Attack 30% 1 30% 1 45% 2 60% 4 Parry 30% 1 30% 1 45% 2 60% 4 Thus, to generate a crafter with the basic (quick) system, one would simply write down the 5 basic skills, then look at the number by optional skills and picks 8 optional skills, then pick a number of spells (say 5 points of Spirit Magic for a Competent crafter), and finally write down equipment and wealth. Hope that gets the idea across - but that's the basic idea. This should be much simpler and much faster, for those that aren't interested in the greater level of detail and control that the pointing system allows. Let me know what you think. Oliver  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA07763; Fri, 4 Jun 93 23:46:43 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA00958; Sat, 5 Jun 93 00:46:35 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Sat, 5 Jun 93 0:46:48 EDT From: "Loren J. Miller" To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: sorcery rules Date: 05 Jun 1993 00:44:12 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: Just a short comment, no major discussion starter, but I wonder why people thought it was necessary to restrict the sorcerous manipulations so much. They hadn't caused any problems in my campaign and I liked the ability to cast spells that lasted a long time without making full enchantments. With the new rules for long duration sorcery, there's no reason to cast a long duration sorcery. As long as you're spending your permanent POW you might as well do it right and get a permanent spell, not just one that lasts a while. Just do a binding enchantment with a magic spirit that's ordered to cast its protection/damage resistance spell when the wielder is under attack. It costs a few more points of POW but is *permanent*, compared to a temporary spell that still costs permanent POW. -- Loren  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA07837; Fri, 4 Jun 93 23:51:56 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01006; Sat, 5 Jun 93 00:52:01 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Sat, 5 Jun 93 0:52:02 EDT From: "Loren J. Miller" To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: enchantments in stories Date: 05 Jun 1993 00:49:40 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: The note I just sent reminded me of an old topic for me. When you look at fantasy and fairy stories typically a mage casts a permanent enchantment by: 1. repeating the casting 3 times 2. using the law of sympathy or contagion 3. allocating a large portion of magical power to spell maintenance, with the option to pull it back if it is needed in a pinch (this can be restricted). Would it be possible to allow long-term manipulations somehow following the schemes of our source material, as above? What do you all think? -- Loren  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA09903; Sat, 5 Jun 93 02:35:08 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA02727; Sat, 5 Jun 93 03:35:11 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Sat, 5 Jun 93 3:35:13 EDT From: kokko@eemeli.enet.dec.com (The Stars Are Right) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: shields and playbalance Date: Sat, 5 Jun 93 09:18:44 +0200 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: I think that the rqIII and now it seems rqIV's lack of stackking limits on rune spells ruins playbalance on higher levels at least for certain cults. In my campaign there is for certain players an irresistable urge to powergame and therefore to protect their characters as much as possible. So if they play say an Orlanthi, he would sacrifice all or most of his pow to get as high a level of Shield spell as possible. So he would have iron armor, iron large shield, shield 6 and protection whatsoever and be very, very gross. all theORDINARY, run of the mill opponents would have very hard time against him with his 100% in shield parry. and the firepower that could make things a bit more exciting for him would crush all other members of the party and make paly very dull for them. Of course you can always try to invent new ways of circumventing the advantage of armor but the fact is that these tanks are bad for a game or campaign. The same goes for the current compatiblity of shield with other spells, spells that wre incomaptible with it in the RQ2. If they were incomaptible as earlier on , characters would have to decide which is more dangerous, spirits or physical weapons in a fight where both were present, instead of protecting themselves against both. Again this is problem with gamers starting to reach or exceed the Rune level. But the rules should work there also. I think also that the current classification of physical shields to bucklers to hoplite shields is pretty good, but I disagree that the size of the shield should protect you against damage so severely as the current rules indicate. Say you have a cahracter with 16 or 18 point shield with maybe iron thrown in to protect for half as much again and then the character has 90% or more with shield. The guy is pretty much immortal in ordinary fights. I would rather say that the protection is much less say, on the level with weapons 10 or less points and maybe without the benefit of iron and say that the advantage of bigger shiled lies in the amount of locations it protects or a higher beginning percentage (much higher?) . What do you say. -- hannu (a GM in a Gloranthan campaign starting 1981 and still continuing)  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA14420; Sat, 5 Jun 93 11:34:17 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA07400; Sat, 5 Jun 93 12:33:49 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Sat, 5 Jun 93 12:34:16 EDT From: charles gregory fried To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: shields and playbalance Date: Sat, 5 Jun 93 11:33:29 CDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: hannu: Your thougts on excessive rune amgic were very much to the point. I have one idea that I have put into practice in my campaign on this. Whan a person wishes to learn an additional point of rune magic, square the number of points of rune magic sought: the character must then overcome this number with his or her POW in order to receive this new level of the magic from the god. For example, you seek Shield 4: squaring 4, we get 16; you have a POW of 15 (assume that you are an acolyte); you must beat a 16 on a resistance roll with a 15: you need to roll 45 or under to get Shield 4. If this fails, i rule that initiates and acolytes must wait until the next high holy day to try again, priests must wait until the next seasonal holy day. A very harsh GM might rule that the character loses the point of POW! I also allow characters to sacrifice additional points of POW to improve their chances. You can also use this system for spirit magic: bladesharp 6 is rather gross too! This system has the benefit of making it quite hard to go beyond 4 points of stackable rune magic. Thoughts? -- Greg Fried  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA22518; Sat, 5 Jun 93 20:45:32 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA13426; Sat, 5 Jun 93 21:45:28 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Sat, 5 Jun 93 21:45:31 EDT From: "Loren J. Miller" To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: shields and playbalance Date: 05 Jun 1993 21:42:55 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: hannu (a GM in a Gloranthan campaign starting 1981 and still continuing) writes: | cults. In my campaign there is for certain players an irresistable urge | to powergame and therefore to protect their characters as much as | possible. So if they play say an Orlanthi, he would sacrifice all or What's wrong with playing the character as protective of his life? The rules reflect gloranthan reality. I think this is a good thing, not a problem. The problem you have with game balance is really a campaign issue. It can be taken care of in a number of ways. 1. A character like this is going to get a reputation. People will know what he can do. Enemies will prepare specifically for him. When in war an army faces a superior opponent they use hit and run tactics. Opponents should have a large number of (low skill) folks chucking javelins at the character. Some will get criticals and his armor won't protect against those attacks. After they chuck their javelins they will run away and let him chase them. Some will circle around and retrieve javelins, while others lead him into ambushes. He'll start racking up fatigue. After 20 minutes or so his shield 6 will run out and he'll be without it, bringing his protection down to mortal levels. Some of the javelins will get through and he's going to bite the big one. Other tactics could include a net trap that pulls him way up into the air, either disarming him or forcing him to cut a hole in the trap and fall 8 meters or so. Pit traps will also work wonders, and in one with a covered top he'll get thirsty and hungry after a while, which will weaken him. And he has to sleep sometime. This all assumes he can be separated from the rest of the party, which isn't usually all that hard. It also assumes you want to kill or capture the character, which is up for question. The sable tribes are especially masterful at such tactics. 2. He's great at warfare, so what? The occupying lunar army will use tactics like those above against would-be Orlanthi heroes. Is he any good at more courtly skills? Involve the characters in some non-combat things. Get them lost in the desert. Give him a grant of land, and force him to negotiate with his neighbors, who are all beastmen or some of the orlanthi hill tribesmen who give the group a bad name (think "Deliverance"). Have a beautiful woman fall in love with him. Run him through the Garhound contest and see if he wins. 3. If he isn't a wind lord then he won't be able to cast personal magic in that iron armor. If he is then any earth priestess who invokes the lightbringer's oath can get him to go on a quest for her. This can be a suicide mission or not. Assuming they aren't also lightbringer rune levels, the other characters don't have to come along, especially if it is thought to be too dangerous for them to have a chance to survive. If he refuses to give serious aid (at minimum he could cast all his rune magic into a truestone), he'll get retributive spirits such as impests. 4. He's so powerful he's well on his way to hero status. Let him try to make it all the way. This will be dangerous enough to challenge him, and might call for the skills of everyone else too. Just remember that hero quests require more than a combat monster to succeed, and mastery with sword and shield won't be enough even to win all the combats. | I think also that the current classification of physical shields to | bucklers to hoplite shields is pretty good, but I disagree that the size | of the shield should protect you against damage so severely as the | current rules indicate. I would rather say that the protection is | much less say, on the level with weapons 10 or less points and maybe | without the benefit of iron and say that the advantage of bigger shiled | lies in the amount of locations it protects or a higher beginning | percentage (much higher?) . What do you say. The way I understand it, a buckler is much easier to use than a larger shield is, because you simply punch the incoming attacks with the buckler, while you need to slide a larger shield sideways to intercept attacks. You can't simply punch them because of air resistance and the weight of the shield, never mind the strap that connects some shields to the forearm. That's why I'd prefer to change the defaults so that buckler has a high default, say 25%, and the others have a lower default, like 10%, but can passively protect some number of hit locations. I agree with you that the larger shields shouldn't have all that many more AP than smaller shields. They have more surface area, not more cross-section. You could say that large shields passively protect 8 location values, medium 4, and bucklers 0. Combined with rules like my house rules that allow people to direct blows at subsets of the full hit locations this would add some color (and maybe too much complexity) to combats. Also there is a game balance consideration: Unless you give buckler a high default skill there's no reason for a character to take it. Who would choose a shield that offers less protection AND is harder to use? What do all the other playtesters think of this idea? whoah, +++++++++++++++++++++++23 Loren Miller internet: MILLERL@wharton.upenn.edu S sign lists littles what wetland received in phire bonuse --1M Monkeys  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA23473; Sat, 5 Jun 93 22:19:16 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA14385; Sat, 5 Jun 93 23:19:14 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Sat, 5 Jun 93 23:19:16 EDT From: Mark S. c/o Tom Yates To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: shields and playbalance Date: Sat, 5 Jun 93 23:22:21 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: There is a very good reason to use a bucker despite the fact that it does not have a higher default skill. Buckers are very light. If you are concerned about the effects of encumberence on fatigue, stealth, or dodging. Or if you simply want more loot. Besides, weapons aren't Gurps characters, they don't have to be equally powerful. Mark Sabalauskas  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA23544; Sat, 5 Jun 93 22:30:50 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA14607; Sat, 5 Jun 93 23:30:54 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Sat, 5 Jun 93 23:30:56 EDT From: Mark S. c/o Tom Yates To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: shields and playbalance Date: Sat, 5 Jun 93 23:33:59 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: Umm, make that if you simply want to be able to carry more loot. Note that I am not addressing the question of weather or not bucklers are actually easier to use. If they are than the base should be changed, if they aren't then it should not. Other considerations are irrevevant. Mark S  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA23556; Sat, 5 Jun 93 22:32:38 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA14649; Sat, 5 Jun 93 23:32:41 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Sat, 5 Jun 93 23:32:44 EDT From: "Loren J. Miller" To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: shields and playbalance Date: 05 Jun 1993 23:29:51 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: No shield at all is even lighter than a buckler, and it's about as useful. Guess which I'd use in war if life followed RQ rules? -- Loren  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA02782; Sun, 6 Jun 93 09:10:21 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA20300; Sun, 6 Jun 93 10:08:12 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Sun, 6 Jun 93 10:10:27 EDT From: mabeyke@batman.b11.ingr.com (boris) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: shields and playbalance Date: Sun, 6 Jun 93 9:10:38 CDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: > > That's why I'd prefer to change the defaults so that > buckler has a high default, say 25%, and the others have a lower > default, like 10%, but can passively protect some number of hit > locations. I agree with you that the larger shields shouldn't have all > that many more AP than smaller shields. They have more surface area, not > more cross-section. You could say that large shields passively protect 8 ^^^^^^^^^^ > location values, medium 4, and bucklers 0. Combined with rules like my > house rules that allow people to direct blows at subsets of the full hit > locations this would add some color (and maybe too much complexity) to > combats. > > Also there is a game balance consideration: Unless you give buckler a > high default skill there's no reason for a character to take it. Who > would choose a shield that offers less protection AND is harder to use? > > What do all the other playtesters think of this idea? > > Loren Miller internet: MILLERL@wharton.upenn.edu > Higher defaults for smaller shields make sense, as well as higher APs. Currently a buckler gives fewer APs than a shortsword, maybe even a main gauche (I don't have my rules here, so I may be off some). The only reason *anyone* in my campaign uses them is that, inspired by the RQIII box art, I allow weilders of two handed weapons to use a buckler at half skill, strapped to their arm. And since I don't think the APs of polearms and spears are increased if they're iron, the wind lords and storm khans can thus get some advantage from iron bucklers. I think, if I were to start another campaign, I would rescale the shield APs. Probably give all of them the APs medium shields have currently, and use your idea that, even without a parry attempt or with a failed (though not a fumbled) parry, the shield provides passive (i.e. half) armor to a number of locations. Large shields would cover maybe four (eight? what, Loren, all of you and your buddy's butt? ;-), a medium two, and a buclker none, as you said. Also, to offset the advantages of using large shield, I'd probably have an additional encumbrance penalties. I didn't like skill reductions that RQIII had for negative fatigue, and since RQIV no longer has FPs that isn't viable now anyway. I think a better idea is to add one to a character's DEX SR for every multiple of STR of ENC they have; if their ENC <= STR, no change, if STR < ENC <= 2*STR, +1 DEX SR, etc. This seems very realistic to me; when I've been backpacking or just carrying a lot, I react slower than normal. Perhaps also have +1 DSR for each fatigue level lost as well, but that's a different matter. -- Boris Mikey, aka |"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive Maurice Beyke | for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if mabeyke@ingr.com | you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." Intergraph doesn't want Nietzsche my opinions.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA09096; Sun, 6 Jun 93 17:59:18 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA26364; Sun, 6 Jun 93 18:57:31 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Sun, 6 Jun 93 18:59:22 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: General Comments Part I Date: Sun, 6 Jun 93 11:04:42 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: Paul Reilly here. Some quick comments on the RQIV playtest draft: Generally, it seems a good improvement on most details. I especially like the Spirit rules and have one or two suggestions, will get to those in another post. I would have gone a different direction, towards more Pendragon-like combat rules for example, but there is a lot of value in continuity. I'll address some specific parts of the rules in order, this post will cover the first 40 RQ III pages or so (reckoning pages by the notes in the Draft.) > Conversion: This is a good set of rules, seems much better than the II --> III conversion. > Rolling Methods: We tried these and they all seem good enough. In particular the Deliberate Method is a big improvement as it takes into account stat training limits and the non linear values of stats. Combined Method, same comment. This was our favorite, but with switching allowed if stated in advance: "I want to run a warrior who is really tough: highest stat will be CON." > DAMAGE MODIFIER: This smoother table is better but as long as we are overhauling the system perhaps we could switch over to a Pendragon-style system? Having played both and with much experience chopping and bashing this system seems better to me. Of course Ducks and suchlike may be reduced to using poisoned weapons, but I always suspected them of it anyway. > Page 19: > FIGURING SKILLS CATEGORY MODIFIER, replace in part with: > Agility Skills Modifier > DEX, STR = Primary > SIZ = Negative From my own experiences with riding, boating, jump, Dodge, etc. and talking to real masters of these skills, I'd have to count POW as very important. One climber said to me: "You are in a battle of wills with an ancient mountain," when I asked him what Climbing was like. Thus I'd say: DEX, POW = Primary SIZ = Negative For Parry, I'd discount the SIZ altogether - after years of fighting I find that the extra reach of the larger fighter at least compensates for the "smaller target" effect. I have no trouble Parrying and I am 185 cm & over 100 kg. This would also make larger fighters prefer Parry to Dodge, which in my experience is in fact the case. Climb might go on Parry modifier rather than agility: lighter is better but long limbs are an advantage. The ideal climber looks a bit like a spider. >Knowledge Skills Modifier > INT = Primary > POW = Secondary Great, back to RQ II! After graduate school I'd almost count in CON as well... in any case ability to concentrate and insight should depend somewhat on POW and these are important to Knowledge skills. > Stealth Skills Modifier Great, exactly what we've been using for years. We also play that when you initiate in certain cults (Thief, Hunter) your POW becomes a _positive_ Stealth modifier, modelling the character learning to project "Nobody Here" with his aura instead of "Look at Me!" (the default). Unchanged Modifiers: I also thought these were OK. STRIKE RANKS: No comment >Pages 21 to 32: >PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE, replace most of with: After a couple of sample characters this system looks pretty good. It seems slow at this point but when we get used to it I think it may be as fast or faster than RQ III and with a lot more character choice. I'll report back after more testing. >BECOMING AN INITIATE I really liked the old RQ II system where most people started as lay members and it was a big point in the game when you finally became an Initiate. It made for a feeling of "eliteness" and achievement without going all the way to Rune level. Starting as an Initiate in a society where all adults are Initiates takes away some of the _meaning_ of it, although it models many societies pretty well. I suppose that it's important to the _characters_ but the _players_ who start as Initiates attach less significance to it: it's No Big Thing anymore. > POW: to increase POW, the character needs to have used I think that _more_ things need to be modelled as POW tests: tests of will and grit, "staredowns", interpersonal conflicts, etc. If POW is used _only_ to power magic and not for much of anything else (except skill mods and luck tests) then we have no model of what a high-POW person means, unless it is just lucky. We all _know_ what Strength or Dexterity mean because we see it in use every day. I suspect we see POW in use every day also: it measures strength of will and _chi_. Or does it mean something else to you? In any case if we can figure out what else POW is used for we may have an idea where to get POW gains from: perhaps facing down a hostile crowd (or a thesis committee) should count for a POW check. Also, mastering a new skill might give enough self-confidence for a POW gain or check. Other stats: no comment. _________________________" > SKILL TABLES The general comments are good. > EASY, MEDIUM AND HARD SKILLS Great, back to RQ II! Reserving comment on the actual tables until more time has been spent testing them. They look pretty good, tried a few and they were OK. _______________ > Page 34: > SKILL VERSUS SKILL, replace with: For one less die roll, how about comparing the _number_ rolled in the case where both parties get an equal level of success? This is the Pendragon mechanic and we have tried it in RQ with no problems. >Active vs Passive: This is very good, needed to be addressed. Now there is a mechanic for guards being "on alert", etc. >Page 37: >SKILL EXPERIENCE ROLLS, replace with This stuff is pretty good, have to play through and check the numbers but looks good now. > POW gain rolls use a related system. The GM should assign a POW gain > roll to characters depending on their use of magic and involvement I may be in the minority here, but my model of high mana characters has always included people like Hannibal or George Washington, or Hiawatha, or, on Glorantha, the great knights of Seshnela or Godunya, all of whom seem to use little magic. Maybe belief of other people helps POW gain, (like Pendragon Glory), and "growth experiences" could also help. I have tried many things but don't really have a killer system to offer. If you do, pipe up! > Page 37: > INCREASING SKILLS BY EXPERIENCE, replace with: I like the Easy/Medium/Hard system, it's simple and usable. > Page 37: > SKILL TRAINING AND RESEARCH, replace most of with: > > The length of time for one training or research session is a > number of hours equal to the current skill percentage. I'd say: number of hours equal to the current skill percentage, not counting stat bonuses. Thus a character with a 55% Ride skill, due in part to a 5% Agility bonus, must spend 50 hours training to qualify for a skill increase. For several years now we have played that you count stat bonuses on skills when you use them but use a _base_ skill with no bonus for experience or training. Otherwise the stat bonus just isn't worth more than a few hours of initial training. It seems to us that the intelligent woman will always have an advantage in Animal Lore or Battle. After years of fighting, I'm also convinced that one can't "catch up" to the more dextrous fighters by spending equal time training. Let's compare two characters learning Mathematics, a Hard Knowledge skill. Donald the Dullard, Int 8, POW 6, has a -4% Knowledge modifier and starts at 1%. Greta the Gifted, INT 18, POW 14, has a 10% bonus and starts at 15%. They go throught the same college, spending 1020 hours training. Under my system Greta comes out with a 75% skill and Donald with a 61% skill, as I would think appropriate. Under the standard rules, Donald comes out with a 63% skill and will soon tick over enough hours to get to 65%, and Greta, with more than twice poor Donald's INT and POW, has but a 65% skill and is only one quarter of the way to her next increase. I could have chosen a number of hours which would have wound them up with the _same_ skill after equal hours of training, despite the difference in their abilities. Anyone who has taught a course will tell you that this is not a good model. ________________________ > CHARACTERISTIC INCREASE, replace with: Pretty good, but: > Species maximum is determined by adding the minimum possible roll >to the maximum possible roll for the characteristic. The species maximum By this reckoning Ogres have a species max POW of 26, and STR of 38. Mistress race trolls have a species max POW of 33. Do we want them to have this kind of power gain roll? Agimori get a species max con of 31. I kind of liked (max roll + number of dice) from RQ II, thus greater _variability_ led to higher maximum stats. Or use 6 points = 1 die, this still means variability implies a higher maximum compared to average than fixed points. Training Rules: Good. Good instructors should count for something. > Page 41: > HUMANOID HIT POINTS PER LOCATION TABLE, replace with: Wow! the formula given matches the table! > Page 41: > RESULTS OF DAMAGE, replace with: Good! Especially there is now a zone between "wounded" and "dead". We have been using similar but not identical rules, these are more radically different from RQ III than ours - even better, in my opinion. We've been playing that without First Aid a Healing may heal bad wounds in the wrong shape, necessitating later surgery. Bleeding is good. I also think that there should be NO instant Healing for blood loss or fire damage, except perhaps through major Divine spells or DI. As one of my players said (concerning the multiyear campaign which wound up Rune level) "Wounds didn't bother us but we were SCARED of fire." I also think blood is the "stuff of life" and its loss is fundamental. >Page 43: >NATURAL HEALING, Add: Lethal vs. non lethal is good BUT I think that the healing rate for lethal is too high. I've spent MONTHS recovering from a whiplash, etc. Friends who've been shot or stabbed spent a LONG time recovering. It took me about three months to fully recover from my appendectomy. If Gloranthans heal faster than Earth humans the given rates are OK but it should be made explicit. >Long term general HP damage: Again, healing this stuff _should_ be hard. If all damage can be made to go away instantly there is no way for a fight to be really significant unless someone is killed or maimed. I'd say Heal Wounds is for wounds only, Heal Body might restore _some_ general HP damage, and fix poison damage, and that healing gods and Ernalda should get some sort of Counter Poison spell. We had a shaman find a spirit for Purge Poison, this spirit spell was good and purged its level in Potency of poison, minus one for each round that had gone by since the poison was injected (or minus one per minute for poisons in food.)  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA04840; Sun, 6 Jun 93 12:33:30 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA22578; Sun, 6 Jun 93 13:31:38 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Sun, 6 Jun 93 13:33:31 EDT From: Carl Fink To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: shields and playbala Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1993 13:31:17 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Subject: Re: shields and playbalance Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu In this discussion of bucklers, it might be worth remembering that in the real world, almost nobody ever used bucklers, for precisely the reasons given by everyone. I can only think of Renaissance fencers, and they used a very specialized style that left the left hand free and near the body.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA05985; Sun, 6 Jun 93 14:09:16 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA23495; Sun, 6 Jun 93 15:07:26 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Sun, 6 Jun 93 15:09:21 EDT From: charles gregory fried To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: shields and playbala Date: Sun, 6 Jun 93 14:07:11 CDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: 5-Jun-93 16:34:59-GMT,1844;000000000001 Received: from noc4.dccs.upenn.edu by midway.uchicago.edu Sat, 5 Jun 93 11:34:58 CDT Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA07400; Sat, 5 Jun 93 12:33:49 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Sat, 5 Jun 93 12:34:16 EDT From: charles gregory fried To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: shields and playbalance Date: Sat, 5 Jun 93 11:33:29 CDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: hannu: Your thougts on excessive rune amgic were very much to the point. I have one idea that I have put into practice in my campaign on this. Whan a person wishes to learn an additional point of rune magic, square the number of points of rune magic sought: the character must then overcome this number with his or her POW in order to receive this new level of the magic from the god. For example, you seek Shield 4: squaring 4, we get 16; you have a POW of 15 (assume that you are an acolyte); you must beat a 16 on a resistance roll with a 15: you need to roll 45 or under to get Shield 4. If this fails, i rule that initiates and acolytes must wait until the next high holy day to try again, priests must wait until the next seasonal holy day. A very harsh GM might rule that the character loses the point of POW! I also allow characters to sacrifice additional points of POW to improve their chances. You can also use this system for spirit magic: bladesharp 6 is rather gross too! This system has the benefit of making it quite hard to go beyond 4 points of stackable rune magic. Thoughts? -- Greg Fried  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA24972; Mon, 7 Jun 93 09:59:58 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA12102; Mon, 7 Jun 93 10:59:47 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 7 Jun 93 11:00:04 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: enchantments in stories Date: Mon, 7 Jun 93 03:06:54 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: Paul R. here. Single > is Peter van Heusden, > > is Loren: >> 3. allocating a large portion of magical power to spell maintenance, with the >> option to pull it back if it is needed in a pinch (this can be restricted). Our home-grown sorcery system does essentially this, I could post a summary if there is interest. >Doesn't divine magic use this? Yes, I like it for that reason. Divine magicians have a certain amount of magic and that's it. I think spirit and sorcery could work like this also. > This has nasty side effects, though. Like: > cast a long duration spell to keep the bridge up, when the caravan is crossing > the bridge, pull back the spell. Bye bye caravan. You could also do this with a wooden support and a rope. The guards should check for mundane or magical traps before they allow the caravan to cross. I'd say you have to overcome the highest POW of the people on the bridge to pull out the spell, though. There are two models we see in stories: in one the spells must be maintained and the problem is to keep them going. In the other the spell has a life of its own and even the magician who cast it has trouble putting it out (Sorceror's Apprentice). I'd say determine what the power source of the spell is and use that with the first model: if you use a demon to power the spell you had better watch out. >> Would it be possible to allow long-term manipulations somehow following the >> schemes of our source material, as above? What do you all think? Yes, I think that this is superior. As I said, will post if people want to see a long post on this.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA25375; Mon, 7 Jun 93 10:09:02 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA12523; Mon, 7 Jun 93 11:09:01 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 7 Jun 93 11:09:08 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: y! Date: Mon, 7 Jun 93 03:16:05 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: Paul R. here. Single > is Peter van Heusden, > > is Loren: >> 3. allocating a large portion of magical power to spell maintenance, with the >> option to pull it back if it is needed in a pinch (this can be restricted). Our home-grown sorcery system does essentially this, I could post a summary if there is interest. >Doesn't divine magic use this? Yes, I like it for that reason. Divine magicians have a certain amount of magic and that's it. I think spirit and sorcery could work like this also. > This has nasty side effects, though. Like: > cast a long duration spell to keep the bridge up, when the caravan is crossing > the bridge, pull back the spell. Bye bye caravan. You could also do this with a wooden support and a rope. The guards should check for mundane or magical traps before they allow the caravan to cross. I'd say you have to overcome the highest POW of the people on the bridge to pull out the spell, though. There are two models we see in stories: in one the spells must be maintained and the problem is to keep them going. In the other the spell has a life of its own and even the magician who cast it has trouble putting it out (Sorceror's Apprentice). I'd say determine what the power source of the spell is and use that with the first model: if you use a demon to power the spell you had better watch out. >> Would it be possible to allow long-term manipulations somehow following the >> schemes of our source material, as above? What do you all think? Yes, I think that this is superior. As I said, will post if people want to see a long post on this.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA20257; Mon, 7 Jun 93 07:25:58 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA06348; Mon, 7 Jun 93 08:25:52 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 7 Jun 93 8:26:01 EDT From: Pierre.Boulet@lip.ens-lyon.fr (Pierre Boulet) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: experience/fatigue/combat Date: Mon, 7 Jun 93 14:25:39 +0200 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: Paul Reilly said: > > Page 37: > > SKILL TRAINING AND RESEARCH, replace most of with: > > > > The length of time for one training or research session is a > > number of hours equal to the current skill percentage. > I'd say: > number of hours equal to the current skill percentage, not counting > stat bonuses. Thus a character with a 55% Ride skill, due in part to > a 5% Agility bonus, must spend 50 hours training to qualify for a skill > increase. > > For several years now we have played that you count stat bonuses on > skills when you use them but use a _base_ skill with no bonus for experience > or training. Otherwise the stat bonus just isn't worth more than a few > hours of initial training. It seems to us that the intelligent woman will > always have an advantage in Animal Lore or Battle. After years of fighting, > I'm also convinced that one can't "catch up" to the more dextrous fighters > by spending equal time training. > > Let's compare two characters learning Mathematics, a Hard Knowledge > skill. Donald the Dullard, Int 8, POW 6, has a -4% Knowledge modifier > and starts at 1%. Greta the Gifted, INT 18, POW 14, has a 10% bonus > and starts at 15%. > > They go throught the same college, spending 1020 hours training. Under my > system Greta comes out with a 75% skill and Donald with a 61% skill, as > I would think appropriate. Under the standard rules, Donald comes out with > a 63% skill and will soon tick over enough hours to get to 65%, and > Greta, with more than twice poor Donald's INT and POW, has but a 65% > skill and is only one quarter of the way to her next increase. I could have > chosen a number of hours which would have wound them up with the _same_ > skill after equal hours of training, despite the difference in their > abilities. Anyone who has taught a course will tell you that this is > not a good model. > > ________________________ I like this, and actually play with this rule. > Page 37: > SKILL EXPERIENCE ROLLS, replace with > > > Players keep track of when their characters use their skills. > Once a skill has been used in a situation that is stressful, or otherwise > conducive to learning, the player puts a check beside the skill on the > character sheet. Typical stressful situations include combat, hiding from > enemies, or operating under time pressure. Working with more experienced > characters can be a useful learning experience as well. Trivial use of a skill > (attacking a helpless target, taking an hour to pick a lock, etc.) is > generally not worth a check. When in doubt, consult with the GM. > > At the end of an adventure, the GM allows each player to make a > certain number of experience rolls for his or her character. > We recommend allowing 4 experience rolls for each week of adventuring. how then do you differencies the skills often used and the others, ex: in a week, the PCs have to face 3 or 4 combats, they will have only one check, and identically one if they bargain successfully once in this week. The situation can be inversed... Perhaps, this means that they cannot assimilate quickly too much action. But I think that additionnal checks when critical success of fumble under stress might be adding realism. (perhaps with a first 'critic check' when a PC have already a check replaces it because its effect overcomes the precedent one, the subsequent ones stacking up) What do you think of this? By the way, I have playtested the new fatigue rules, I like them a lot and they work well. For the combat rules, the first time was very long with 4 PCs and an unexperimented GM (me!). I may not have had a good idea to run a combat between 16 opponents to learn the rules... I will send a more detailed (and representative of less complicated combats) comment later. -Pierre PS: for the translation of my character sheets, I don't have the time now, but perhaps next week-end...  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA21561; Mon, 7 Jun 93 08:36:09 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA08611; Mon, 7 Jun 93 09:36:04 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 7 Jun 93 9:36:13 EDT From: pvanheus@cs.uct.ac.za (Peter van Heusden) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: enchantments in stories Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1993 15:35:39 +0200 (SAT) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: > > The note I just sent reminded me of an old topic for me. When you look at > fantasy and fairy stories typically a mage casts a permanent enchantment by: > 1. repeating the casting 3 times Sounds like a ritual to me. I think using rituals for long duration spellcasts could be a good idea. > 2. using the law of sympathy or contagion Basically, I thought that was what embedding a spell in an object was about? > 3. allocating a large portion of magical power to spell maintenance, with the > option to pull it back if it is needed in a pinch (this can be restricted). Doesn't divine magic use this? This has nasty side effects, though. Like: cast a long duration spell to keep the bridge up, when the caravan is crossing the bridge, pull back the spell. Bye bye caravan. > Would it be possible to allow long-term manipulations somehow following the > schemes of our source material, as above? What do you all think? > > -- Loren > My problem with using permanent POW is: How often do you guys get POW increases? Doesn't happen often in my campaign. Then: how about con-mp conversion? For Rolemaster, we worked out a system of trading points of constitution for MP's. Very useful in a pinch - sap your strength to increase your magic. Happens a lot in literature. The final action was a "going out with a bang" option. Force soul destruction to get off major effects for one last spell. Peter ******************************************************************************* Peter van Heusden One man one newsfeed CS3, UCT, Cape Town, RSA "How fast are you? How dense?" pvanheus@cs.uct.ac.za - Rudy Rucker  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA27866; Tue, 8 Jun 93 03:03:42 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA10673; Tue, 8 Jun 93 04:03:45 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Tue, 8 Jun 93 4:03:46 EDT From: joe@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: enchantments in stories Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1993 13:45:20 -0100 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: In , you write: >> The note I just sent reminded me of an old topic for me. When you look at fantasy and fairy stories typically a mage casts a permanent enchantment by: 1. repeating the casting 3 times 2. using the law of sympathy or contagion 3. allocating a large portion of magical power to spell maintenance, with the option to pull it back if it is needed in a pinch (this can be restricted). Would it be possible to allow long-term manipulations somehow following the schemes of our source material, as above? What do you all think? -- Loren << 3. You mean like in the One-thumb story in Thieves World #1, where the sorcerer maintains several (let's call them active) spells for certain customers? These spells draw upon his power and reduce it considerably, but not enough that he would be blocked from using instantaneous magic. I would use this concept for long duration spells, but not for enchantments. 1. Casting a spell thrice: How about maintaining a spell in certain intervals, refuelling it in a ritual? This way a sorcerer who wants to maintain long duration spells would have to lock himself in and have little time to do anything else - similar to a priest's cult duties. just 0.02 DM -- -- Joerg Baumgartner joe@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA08562; Mon, 7 Jun 93 15:01:19 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA24924; Mon, 7 Jun 93 16:01:17 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 7 Jun 93 16:01:23 EDT From: staats@MIT.EDU (Richard C. Staats) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Runes Date: Mon, 07 Jun 93 16:13:08 +0100 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: How about /|\ \|/ /|\ for Slavery? It is a combination of Spirit and Mastery. (Plus, it doesn't rely on orientation.) Rich  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA26323; Mon, 7 Jun 93 10:27:37 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA13418; Mon, 7 Jun 93 11:27:32 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 7 Jun 93 11:27:41 EDT From: burt@ptltd.com (Burton Choinski) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: enchantments in stories Date: Mon, 7 Jun 93 11:23:52 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: Post away, Paul. Oh, and I was bored one night and was playing with your Runic Sorcery rules. As an alternate perception (and formula, if you like): "Impose (a) on (b) to produce (c)" a(b)=c "Impose (a) on (b) via (c) to produce (d)" a(b)>>c=d Easy to read, IMHO. Examples of use: Animate Substance: Mastery(x)>>Magic=Mobility (x rune defined by substance) Apprentice Bonding: Law(Man)>>Infinity=Communication Armoring Enchantment: Hunger(Death)>>Infinity=Harmony NOTE: Harmony as a result means a dampening of harmfull effects. Binding Enchantment Stasis (Spirit) >> Infinity = Slavery NOTE: I thing the "slavery Rune" should be the mastery rune on it's side, like a backwards 'E', rather then upside down. Mastery could be considered to be "Harmony with an underlying control". Slavery has the control being "off to the side" (i.e. not you), and the position of slavery is not harmony. Create Basilisk: Chaos (Fertility) >> Infinity = Beast NOTE: Personally, I think this one worked out nicely. Create Familiar: Mobility (Man) >> Infinity = Man NOTE: i.e. move the elements of "man" to the source Create Vampire: Chaos(Death) >> Infinity = Man Damage Boosting Mastery (Death) >> Magic = Disorder NOTE: Disorder as a result increases the harmfull effects. Fly Mastery(Air) >> Magic = Mobility "Quickfoot" (i.e. equal to the spirit "mobility spell" Mastery (Earth) >> Magic = Mobility "Fishfoot" (The swimming equivalent) Mastery (Water) >> Magic = Mobility Comments?  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA10677; Mon, 7 Jun 93 15:46:07 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA26820; Mon, 7 Jun 93 16:46:10 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 7 Jun 93 16:46:14 EDT From: staats@MIT.EDU (Richard C. Staats) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Runes Date: Mon, 07 Jun 93 16:58:09 +0100 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: The Godlearners made up the runes? I thought the runes were tied up with specific owning deities. Rich  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA00643; Mon, 7 Jun 93 12:03:45 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA17492; Mon, 7 Jun 93 13:03:35 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 7 Jun 93 13:03:50 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: enchantments in stories Date: Mon, 7 Jun 93 13:02:27 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: Replying to: burt@ptltd.com These are quite good, the sort of thing I was thinking of. Once one gets a feel for the Runic "alphabet" a lot of things spring to mind. Different sorcerors organize their Runes differently to produce similar effects. I'll bring in my notes and post the system tomorrow. I have a few hand written corrections to the stuff that's in the system now. Also, I found more of my old hand written notes from a few years ago and will have another long post to do sometime. Tomorrow's post will cover a proposed Sorcery system, without the Runic part, which will go in another post. - Paul R.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA01876; Mon, 7 Jun 93 12:34:02 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA18826; Mon, 7 Jun 93 13:34:03 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 7 Jun 93 13:34:09 EDT From: burt@ptltd.com (Burton Choinski) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: enchantments in stories Date: Mon, 7 Jun 93 13:30:24 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: Another function might be "Remove (x) from (y) to produce (z)" Sorry, make that "Remove (x) from (y)" Also, "Remove (x) from (y) using (z)" (x)-(y) >> (z) Less defined in the result. For example: Man - Spirit >> Magic Ye olde "drain MP" spell (otherwise known as "I have more then you, so I'll just clear out your reserves") Man - Man >> Magic Remove what makes a Man from him. Reduces him/her to a brainless animal (game effect: INT considered to be FIXED INT for duration, runs on instinct...hard to guess.) -- Burton  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA03740; Mon, 7 Jun 93 13:16:58 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA20288; Mon, 7 Jun 93 14:15:10 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 7 Jun 93 14:17:03 EDT From: jjm@zycor.lgc.com (johnjmedway) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Runes Date: Mon, 7 Jun 93 13:14:48 CDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: >> From: burt@ptltd.com (Burton Choinski) >> Subject: Re: enchantments in stories >> Date: Mon, 7 Jun 93 11:23:52 EDT >> >> NOTE: I thing the "slavery Rune" should be the mastery rune on it's side, like >> a backwards 'E', rather then upside down. Mastery could be considered to be >> "Harmony with an underlying control". Slavery has the control being >> "off to the side" (i.e. not you), and the position of slavery is not >> harmony. _ _ Why not | | | ? | | | The "harmony", read "order", is imposed from above. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | john_medway@zycor.lgc.com | Landmark Graphics Corp | 512.292.2325 | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA01815; Mon, 7 Jun 93 12:31:43 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA18726; Mon, 7 Jun 93 13:31:46 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 7 Jun 93 13:31:49 EDT From: staats@MIT.EDU (Richard C. Staats) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: CON <---> MP Date: Mon, 07 Jun 93 13:32:22 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: In an issue of Hero magazine (AH) they had a conversion of FP to MP. I think you could expend 5 FP and get one MP oIt worked pretty well in the campaign I ran in Stuttgart. In service, Rich  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA04781; Mon, 7 Jun 93 13:43:33 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA21439; Mon, 7 Jun 93 14:43:32 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 7 Jun 93 14:43:38 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Runes Date: Mon, 7 Jun 93 14:42:13 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: I tend to agree with John Medway: _____ | | | | | | Order imposed from above. Also, it's obviously an "opposite" to the Mastery Rune. I want to write up a short version of Ompalam for the Pamaltela issue of TotRM, so I'd like to find a "Slavery Rune" that people agree on. This can fit in the RQ 4 discussion also - should Slavery be included as a rune? Owner: Ompalam. It's implicitly used in Cults of Prax: Ompalam's Rune magic must include Enchant Slave Bracelets and Enchant Slave Collar. - Paul R.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA06254; Mon, 7 Jun 93 14:14:16 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA22817; Mon, 7 Jun 93 15:14:17 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 7 Jun 93 15:14:22 EDT From: curtiss@netcom.com (Curtis Shenton) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Runes Date: Mon, 7 Jun 93 12:14:45 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: > > > I tend to agree with John Medway: > _____ > | | | > | | | > > Order imposed from above. Also, it's obviously an "opposite" to the > Mastery Rune. > > I want to write up a short version of Ompalam for the Pamaltela issue of > TotRM, so I'd like to find a "Slavery Rune" that people agree on. > > This can fit in the RQ 4 discussion also - should Slavery be included > as a rune? Owner: Ompalam. It's implicitly used in Cults of Prax: Ompalam's > Rune magic must include Enchant Slave Bracelets and Enchant Slave Collar. > > - Paul R. > Their has to be another way to make slave bracelets and collars though. Ompalam is after all mainly a Pamaltelian god and Prax seems to have quite a few slave collars flaoting about. I also think it would be better to say Slavery is just a twisting of the mastery rune rather than a "true" rune all by itself. -- Curtis Shenton curtiss@netcom.com internet Too lazy to do a 4@3091 WWIVnet "real" .sig file Currently working on a war of the gods adventure for WotC. If you're intrested email LISTSERV@wizards.com with SUBSCRIBE LOC-L  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA07495; Mon, 7 Jun 93 14:37:38 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA23871; Mon, 7 Jun 93 15:37:36 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 7 Jun 93 15:37:42 EDT From: "Loren Miller" To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: enchantments in stories Date: 7 Jun 93 15:35:30 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: I don't know about this probabilistic style formula stuff for spell descriptions. It seems rather too blatantly mundane for my tastes. -- +++++++++++++++++++++++23 Loren Miller LOREN@wmkt.wharton.upenn.edu There's a thin line between TQM and Mutiny  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA07798; Mon, 7 Jun 93 14:44:22 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA24140; Mon, 7 Jun 93 15:44:24 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 7 Jun 93 15:44:28 EDT From: JOVANOVIC@CUCCFA.CCC.COLUMBIA.EDU To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: enchantments in stories Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1993 15:46:10 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: With respect to Ompalam, et. al., I've seen references to the cult of Idkadz having the ability to craft slave bracelets as well. Also, in Pamaltela, Ompalam is but one of a number of slaving gods, at least in the Fonrit area - others that seem to be locally as powerful or even more powerful include Tentacule and Tondiji. I'm not exactly sure if there would be such a clear distinction between Mastery and Slavery in Glorantha. Orlanth has captured, enslaved and stolen the abilities of a number of other Godtime powers. Certainly the God Learners, who assigned the runes to the cults, would see little difference . Oliver  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA08794; Mon, 7 Jun 93 15:05:56 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25128; Mon, 7 Jun 93 16:05:55 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 7 Jun 93 16:05:59 EDT From: "Loren Miller" To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Runes Date: 7 Jun 93 16:03:48 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: Something Oliver said aroused my interest. Since the Godlearners made up all these runes anyway, wouldn't any sorcery that used the Runes be akin to Godlearner heresy? -- +++++++++++++++++++++++23 Loren Miller LOREN@wmkt.wharton.upenn.edu There's a thin line between TQM and Mutiny  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA08994; Mon, 7 Jun 93 15:08:23 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25189; Mon, 7 Jun 93 16:08:14 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 7 Jun 93 16:08:20 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Runes Date: Mon, 7 Jun 93 16:06:49 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: > I also think it would be >better to say Slavery is just a twisting of the mastery rune rather than >a "true" rune all by itself. Funny, that's what the Ompalami say about |_|_| : it's overturned the "natural order". :-) I think that you're basically right, but the Ompalami might disagree: Ompalami may call their version the "Mastery Rune" and the other version "reversed" or twisted. - Paul  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA09027; Mon, 7 Jun 93 15:09:50 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25231; Mon, 7 Jun 93 16:09:48 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 7 Jun 93 16:09:51 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: enchantments in stories Date: Mon, 7 Jun 93 16:08:36 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: Loren says: >I don't know about this probabilistic style formula stuff for spell >descriptions. It seems rather too blatantly mundane for my tastes. I think that just listing the Runes would be fine. How they are actually used is up to the style of the sorceror or his school. More later, Paul  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA09663; Mon, 7 Jun 93 15:22:58 -0500 Return-Path: <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25850; Mon, 7 Jun 93 16:22:57 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 7 Jun 93 16:23:00 EDT From: Nick Brooke <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Nick speaks: Date: 07 Jun 93 16:19:35 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: Hi there, everybody! Two things: (i) I agree with Paul: the Slavery Rune (if it exists) would be an inverted Mastery Rune. Why? Well, Ompalam is also the god of bureaucracy, if I remember right, and I guess we're all familiar with those wall-charts used to trace responsibilities in the office: DA BOSS __________|__________ | | | | | | | | | Me You Him That convinced me! I also agree with Curtis, of course: it's not a "proper" Rune, *and*, whatever power or deity we use to create Slave Bracelets etc. in Genertela, *nobody* would call it "Ompalam". (Shades of the "Pelorian Nyanka" from TotRM 6...). The Lunar god of Slavery is *probably* Danfive Xaron, as I mooted (to universal silence) back in March. Oh, we'll need a good set of rules for Slaves and POW some time. I'd suggest that a born slave gets 1D6 POW, just as a domesticated animal has a lower POW than its wild counterpart: cf. RQ3 Monsters Book for examples. A captive-made-slave has his original POW, and is the kind of guy you'd clap a Slave Collar on. Slave Collars ought to be fairly cheap and easy to obtain... not so much a "magical" as a "natural" effect. Of course, a slave who rebels *must* have had POW 3D6 all along... This suggestion is meant to be provocative, up there with the reduced POW roll for Dara Happan women! But the socio-mythical arguments are all in favour of both these "non-Politically Correct" suggestions! (Now, here's a can of worms... Yum, Yum!). (ii) Seems to me that "general" postings re: RQ4 Draft 2.0 (like that from Paul today) might fit in here on the list. Now, back in September when I first saw RQ4, I took a week of evenings off to write a fairly detailed commentary on that version. Since then, I've not heard of any new drafts incorporating whatever was accepted from my collected wit and wisdom. Like many others I've corresponded with and talked to, I'm worried that my Deep Thoughts will be left at the back of the filing cabinet when Draft 3.0 (or 2.1?) is eventually produced. So, should I post this stuff to the list, or do you Yanks get sent copies of all the interesting feedback anyway (and it's just poor Brits like me & Steve & David that get left out in the cold)? Warning: this stuff is *long*! Cheers, Nick Brooke PS: Loren, I know it's probably a bit late to ask this, but is it possible for you to "Digestify" this mailing list? I'm finding it really awkward finding my way around a mailshot of ten or twenty fragmentary letters every day... and the "slow response time" doesn't seem to limit Henk's Daily at all: probably makes it more thoughtful, if anything. NB  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA09667; Mon, 7 Jun 93 15:22:59 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25853; Mon, 7 Jun 93 16:23:00 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 7 Jun 93 16:23:03 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: enchantments in stories Date: Mon, 7 Jun 93 16:21:40 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: I thought Tondiji was a city god. (If he's the one listed as 'perhaps the most powerful city god in Glorantha') and Ompalam was the god of Slavery. A friend of mine has worked out a pretty good cult of Ikadz. They're nice guys. Really, I'm not kidding - they just have a bad rep. People just don't understand that it's for their own good. Is their any way to get ahold of these sort of references? I've never seen some of this stuff. Is it in-house? - Paul P.S. Thanks for the info.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA10115; Mon, 7 Jun 93 15:32:39 -0500 Return-Path: <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA26269; Mon, 7 Jun 93 16:32:41 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 7 Jun 93 16:32:45 EDT From: Nick Brooke <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: God Learner Runes Date: 07 Jun 93 16:29:24 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: Loren sez: > Since the Godlearners made up all these runes anyway, Not so sure they did. They had the "RuneQuest Sight", meaning they could *see* the Runes wherever they were. That doesn't mean they *invented* them; more likely they set down the first formal listing of something already common to most of Glorantha... Nick  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA10177; Mon, 7 Jun 93 15:34:12 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA26382; Mon, 7 Jun 93 16:34:13 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 7 Jun 93 16:34:17 EDT From: "Loren Miller" To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Nick speaks: Date: 7 Jun 93 16:32:51 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: Good points on the Slavery rune, especially re the wall chart. I wonder if Sandy Peterson chose to make Ompalam the god of bureaucracy because he saw the same thing? >Oh, we'll need a good set of rules for Slaves and POW some time. I'd >suggest that a born slave gets 1D6 POW, just as a domesticated animal has a Ooooh! Touchy! I like it, but it probably isn't something you could get away with publishing in the USA. >(ii) Seems to me that "general" postings re: RQ4 Draft 2.0 (like that from >Paul today) might fit in here on the list. That's what I intended the list for, actually. I haven't seen your comments. You haven't seen my comments. None of us, except for the gang of four, have seen anybody's comments. If I can find my comments I'll digestify them and send them off to the list. >PS: Loren, I know it's probably a bit late to ask this, but is it possible >for you to "Digestify" this mailing list? Nope. Sorry. The software I'm running isn't set up to let me do this. I agree, though, that this mailing list is getting a little chatty. Let's try to make our contributions more meaty, folks. Try to keep your postings to a certain minimum content, and maybe one or two postings per day, maximum. I know I haven't followed that today, but I'll hold myself back from now on. And remember, pure gloranthan material without direct game applications, such as rune identity questions, should probably go to the digest. -- +++++++++++++++++++++++23 Loren Miller LOREN@wmkt.wharton.upenn.edu There's a thin line between TQM and Mutiny  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA10247; Mon, 7 Jun 93 15:37:01 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA26460; Mon, 7 Jun 93 16:37:01 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 7 Jun 93 16:37:06 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Runes Date: Mon, 7 Jun 93 16:35:51 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: >Something Oliver said aroused my interest. Since the Godlearners made >up all these runes anyway, wouldn't any sorcery that used the Runes >be akin to Godlearner heresy? We keep having reality shifts. In RQ II the Runes were the very stuff of the Universe. Darkness came first and gave rise to the other Elements, (or Chaos came first and gave rise to Darkness) and the Power Runes had devotees who all claimed that theirs was the First Rune. Each cult had Runic associations, and these were important magically and in Society. There were rules like "No adherents of a Death Rune cult may enter the temple," etc. In RQ III lots of information was cut on cults but the Runic associations were important enough to keep. Most of the artwork uses Runes, including those depicting Western sorcerors spellcasting. We are told in the Player's Book: Genertela, by _Greg_Stafford_ and Sandy Petersen, that Western sorcerors love to use the standard Gloranthan Runes. Also, cults way down into Pamaltela and ancient non-human cults like Subere or Flamal have runes. These deities are even Rune Owners. And according to the Westerners, the False Gods are sorcerors who got bound up in particular runes. Now Runes are (apparently according to Greg again) not much in use by Western Sorcerors, and were a God Learner innovation. What happened to the overthrow of God Learner philosophy and beliefs if the cults use the Runes? If they don't, shouldn't practically all RQ Sources get rewritten? While we're at it, let's change the name of the game, since _Rune_ Quest is no longer appropriate. Quest is wrong too, quests don't feature too much in the published sources for the game. And should we delete stuff like the Law Rune being on the coat of arms for the Wizards of Seshnela? Anyway, I liked Runes. I thought of them as the True Names of the great powers of the universe. Is this an example of Minarian (sp?) Memory Removal? - Paul  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA10665; Mon, 7 Jun 93 15:45:47 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA26797; Mon, 7 Jun 93 16:45:49 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 7 Jun 93 16:45:53 EDT From: curtiss@netcom.com (Curtis Shenton) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Runes Date: Mon, 7 Jun 93 13:46:04 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: > > Something Oliver said aroused my interest. Since the Godlearners made > up all these runes anyway, wouldn't any sorcery that used the Runes > be akin to Godlearner heresy? > Did the Godlearners invent the runes? I always assumed the runes existed but that until the god leaners no one had tried to tie the gods to the runes in such a abstract, mundane fashion. Also I seem to recall a reference that the Brithini always have view the runes as abstract concepts and view everyon else as just mistakenly personifingy the runes as gods. So that the death rune is just death, a law of the universe, and they view it the same way we view gravity, and they think Humakt is just a barbarian way of personifing a perfectly natural force. Also since it seems like sorcery originates with the Brithini(who are atheists) and the Mostali(the word machine view) shouldn't the basic sorcery mechanics be a bit mechanical? I think it's spirit magic and rune magic that need to be more flexable and less mechanical. > > -- > +++++++++++++++++++++++23 > Loren Miller LOREN@wmkt.wharton.upenn.edu > There's a thin line between TQM and Mutiny > -- Curtis Shenton curtiss@netcom.com internet Too lazy to do a 4@3091 WWIVnet "real" .sig file Currently working on a war of the gods adventure for WotC. If you're intrested email LISTSERV@wizards.com with SUBSCRIBE LOC-L  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA10985; Mon, 7 Jun 93 15:53:22 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA27164; Mon, 7 Jun 93 16:53:24 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 7 Jun 93 16:53:28 EDT From: curtiss@netcom.com (Curtis Shenton) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Nick speaks: Date: Mon, 7 Jun 93 13:53:39 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: > > Hi there, everybody! > > Two things: > > (i) I agree with Paul: the Slavery Rune (if it exists) would be an inverted > Mastery Rune. Why? Well, Ompalam is also the god of bureaucracy, if I > remember right, and I guess we're all familiar with those wall-charts used > to trace responsibilities in the office: > > DA BOSS > __________|__________ > | | | > | | | > | | | > Me You Him > > That convinced me! Oh, that's good. It works just too damned well not to be ture. ;) > > I also agree with Curtis, of course: it's not a "proper" Rune, *and*, > whatever power or deity we use to create Slave Bracelets etc. in Genertela, > *nobody* would call it "Ompalam". (Shades of the "Pelorian Nyanka" from > TotRM 6...). The Lunar god of Slavery is *probably* Danfive Xaron, as I > mooted (to universal silence) back in March. > > Oh, we'll need a good set of rules for Slaves and POW some time. I'd > suggest that a born slave gets 1D6 POW, just as a domesticated animal has a > lower POW than its wild counterpart: cf. RQ3 Monsters Book for examples. A > captive-made-slave has his original POW, and is the kind of guy you'd clap > a Slave Collar on. Slave Collars ought to be fairly cheap and easy to > obtain... not so much a "magical" as a "natural" effect. Of course, a > slave who rebels *must* have had POW 3D6 all along... Unless the slave has been affected by something along the lines of a spell to turn him into a herd man I don't really like this idea. In Glorantha it still seems to require a magical spell/ritual to affect this sort of change. > > Cheers, > > Nick Brooke > > > PS: Loren, I know it's probably a bit late to ask this, but is it possible > for you to "Digestify" this mailing list? I'm finding it really awkward > finding my way around a mailshot of ten or twenty fragmentary letters every > day... and the "slow response time" doesn't seem to limit Henk's Daily at > all: probably makes it more thoughtful, if anything. > NB > > I'll seconf that motion. I'd much rather have a difest than endless bits of mail popping up. The regular RQ digest seems to work quite well as a daily after all. Also can anyone tell me where I can get a copy of this damn RQ IV playtest? ;) -- Curtis Shenton curtiss@netcom.com internet Too lazy to do a 4@3091 WWIVnet "real" .sig file Currently working on a war of the gods adventure for WotC. If you're intrested email LISTSERV@wizards.com with SUBSCRIBE LOC-L  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA12728; Mon, 7 Jun 93 16:32:46 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA28741; Mon, 7 Jun 93 17:32:46 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 7 Jun 93 17:32:49 EDT From: jjm@zycor.lgc.com (johnjmedway) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: RQ4 character generation Date: Mon, 7 Jun 93 16:32:21 CDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: >> From: JOVANOVIC@cuccfa.ccc.columbia.edu >> Subject: Character generation >> Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1993 19:13:28 -0400 (EDT) >> >> Here's a very rough sketch of a current idea for >> previous experience - the basic system, recommended >> ... >> >> d) Pick profession (determines social status), >> 1) Basic system - Pick a profession, write down the basic skills >> ... better, but..... What of a character with multiple professions? The characters which I mentioned were of several, complementary professions. One started as a Noble, moved into a priesthood ( Initiate - "Expert" ) since he was a second son, and then became a military officer ( Foot Warrior - "Competant" ). Getting credit back for all of the basic skills for each subsequent profession, when the skills were already at/above the indicated levels was a bit of a pain. Though this system is _far_ better that RQ3, I'd still be more in favor of a system where you buy skills in smaller packages, which you add together. Give a character 5*(age-14) "points" from which to buy packages of the sort: Thug (1 point): Thuggish Weapon +5%, Fist/Kick +5%, Survival(urban) +5%, Culture(urban lowlife) +5%, ... Wealth: cash = 3, _appropriate_ gear = 5 Duelist (1): Noble weapon +10%, Maneuver +5%, Combat Sense +5%, Culture(urban?) +5%, ... Wealth: cash = 5, appropriate gear = 20 Noble (1): Administer Estate +5%, Culture (urban) +5%, Some Art +5%, Sloth +5%, ... Wealth: cash = 10, appropriate gear = 10, property = 50 Wealth points are based on a sliding scale, such as: 1 = d10 bolgs 2 = d10 clacks 3 = d30 clacks ... 10 = d10 lunars ... 50 = d100 lunars ... 100 = d1000 lunars ... As an example: A young (age 18) member of the gentry/nobility decides to split his points between the life of leisure and duelling. Having spent his/her 20 points, we have: Noble weapon (rapier?): 100% split betw. attack and parry Maneuver: 25% Combat Sense: 25% Culture (Pelorian): 25% Culture (Dara Happan): 25% (branching out) Administer Estate: 25% Fresco Appreciation: 25% ... CASH = ( 10 x 5 ) + ( 10 x 10 ) points = 150 points, or about d1200 Lunars GEAR = ( 10 x 20 ) + ( 10 x 10 ) points = 300 points, or about d2500 Lunars PROPERTY = ( 10 x 50 ) points = 500 points, or about d4000 Lunars There should be some flexability here, such as a difference between the skills/benefits in the Soldier category, and that in the Night Watchman category (yet both are Foot Warrior, now). It just seems easier to pile packages together, and sum the total, than to buy each new larger package, and get discounts and rebates. It also would speed NPC generation, as the GM can just think, hmmm. He was a warrior for 5 years, with some thief and scout thrown in. Lessee, thats 5 years x 5 points, or 25 package points, so lets give him 10 points of warrior, 5 points each of thief and scout. the remaining 5 points can go into a mix of more color-oriented skills or packages, maybe buying crafting skills, etc. >> g) Start with equipment and wealth based on profession and culture >> (i.e. Pelorian soldier - scimitar, shield, etc.). We need to develop a list of what gear is appropriate for each culture. (later) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | john_medway@zycor.lgc.com | Landmark Graphics Corp | 512.292.2325 | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA13594; Mon, 7 Jun 93 16:48:08 -0500 Return-Path: <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA29249; Mon, 7 Jun 93 17:48:10 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 7 Jun 93 17:48:12 EDT From: Nick Brooke <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Nick's Comments, part 4 Date: 07 Jun 93 17:41:10 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: Magic Book The Planes I like the extra detail on the Spirit Plane you are providing, though I'm not sure how necessary it is as I've never knowingly been there myself (featureless greyness not being my scene). This stuff on Spirit Sense looks useful to me. A few specific comments: Are you going to write more about all of the Six Worlds in this section (perhaps reprinting the World of Glorantha: Glorantha Book article in its entirety)? How about redoing the cosmic diagram from the Gloranthan Encyclopaedia (showing the world like it really is)? It would make a great illustration for this section. Spirit Scouts How (if at all) can a Spirit Scout sense a magical barrier before crossing it and bringing the house down? If it can't, or must cast Detect Magic vel sim. to do so, you ought to state this explicitly. My guess would be that long-established barriers (all your examples apart from temporary Wardings) probably do "cast a shadow" onto the contiguous Spirit Plane. Spirit Lore Good to point it out. Can we have a bit more, please? Also needed is information on the Spirits of the Dead: like the new Daka Fal concepts relating to the Courts of Silence, the seven-day downward path, and the crossing of the Styx. In which case an article on the Gloranthan Underworld makes eminent sense here. And if you're having that, there's no reason on earth not to do the rest of the Six Worlds... Identifying Spirits The mechanism suggested (not telling CHARACTERS what they can see because the PLAYERS might recognise it) is ugly and ought to have no place in a role-playing game. Would you do this in any other encounter (a Lunar patrol met by new players, for instance?). Do away with it, and have a freer hand in describing what spirits look like. There have been good examples in past RQ products which give little away, and that for role-play purposes. Driving Away Spirits This is very nice. One suggestion, though: it is possible that a "new" or "spontaneous" ward will be effective largely through fear or surprise, and that given the time to probe it a spirit will find out that it's not as tough as it thought. So if the referee rashly decides that loud noises drive away ghosts, he can always change his mind. Improvised wards can and will decrease in effectiveness as spirits gain familiarity with them, and will not work against all spirits of a given class all of the time. This does not apply to tried and tested local remedies, of course (though away from their homeland, spirits may be different). Appeasing Spirits Again, a nice idea. +1% per magic point seems rather low; if this is intended to prevent shamans with oodles of stored MP, make it +5% per PERSONAL magic point, +1% for bound or stored stuff. Remember that the spirit is being made well disposed towards yourself, and the personal touch is all-important. Remember also that we know shamans can do this kind of stuff; don't set up a rule that makes it impossible for anyone else, and difficult for them to boot. Why do shamans get a special bonus as well as the advantage of having more MP on tap than anyone else? Spirit Combat I dislike the current RQ3 system. I also dislike your suggested system in several of its details. Briefly, the Damage table is not very pleasant, and the Fumble table is a disaster: unnecessary and uninteresting for the most part. Just have fumbles make the opponent's action one level better, as in Dodge rolls. Spell Effects Apparent Effects of Magic: Remove the reference to Krarshtkids from the basic rules. We don't know or care how they work; if their senses are so interesting, include a box on them where you write the species up. Most normal folk will hope never to meet them (as with timinits, kukris, naginatas, etc.). I like the Twilight rule. Nice local colour. In the apparent effects table, refer to "Air magic", "Chaos magic" etc. through-out. Remove the phrase "a disturbance in the air", which is often inept or inappropriate and seems to cover a dearth of ideas. Explain why Chaos magic has a cyclical black-and-red glow while Lunar magic is purely red. Also explain, in the light of this, why the First Age Orlanthi wore red. I can, of course, send you an article on this. (For my money, Chaos magic appears with an unearthly, Lovecraftian "colour out of space": a swirling, throbbing greyish pain to look at). Cut the Vormain magics from the basic rules. Note that Lunar magic tends to pulse or throb. Comment on Mostali magic as well (metallic? sparks?), and perhaps add both of those effects to Humakti magic. The phrase, "shamans are the junk collectors of the spirit world", is mighty fine, but perhaps belongs back in the general description of shamans (rather than here where we want not concepts but rules). The random table is boring, colourless, and will only be used by idiots; why should we help them? You are trying to show off and going badly wrong when you refer to "Henotheist schools" of sorcery. This is a misleading misuse of terminology, comparable to asking a Muslim his Christian name. What is wrong with saying "from sect to sect"? Spell Spirits You are labouring the point when you say, "Some Lhankor Mhy scholars believe that spell spirits are the byproduct of the use of great power. Their school of thought is the so-called 'Byproduct School'". Cut the second sentence entirely. Besides which, you should be careful not to write "LHankHor Mhy", which is the name used by Holy Country asthmatics. Perception Skills If a shaman's mundane perception skills are halved when he is not dealing with spirits, but he uses his Spirit Sense instead when he is, how does this rule apply? Shamanic Magic Excellent rules section! More, please, with some interesting as well as useful Shamanic special spells. I'd hand out a one-off every five years, and make half of them quirky rather than useful (player's choice whether or not to keep them, but if they didn't I'd mock them!). These "unique rare spells" (a contradiction in terms) shouldn't have "common names" as well, though you could easily give them "other names", "variant names" vel sim. The spell "Banish" is surely meant to be used for driving out possessing spirits. Why is it that it only works on discorporate spirits, not those embodied in a host? Other names for Draw Spirit: Compel, Attract... Spirit Sword: don't use "one's" like that. Say "the user's" or something like. Shamans on the Spirit Plane First, the Spirit Plane Encounter Tables should be moved here from the Gamemaster Book. Second, the rule that "the number of percentiles devoted to the spirit is a guide to its rarity" will be more user-friendly if the spirits have their % chance listed (in parentheses?) after the actual roll required for an encounter. Learning and Using Spells Very good on the sensory perception of learning a new spell. Water cultists "drink (or breathe) the spirit in", to emphasise that the ones that breathe it in are water-breathers. They might also soak it up, of course. Limits to Spell Memorisation (also p.23, Divine Magic) A rule that says players don't know how large their characters' magic spells are is doomed to be ignored by everyone who reads it. Better simply to say that you can't tell objectively how large a spell that isn't yours is without some very sophisticated magical perception. Range of Spirit Magic: A very good change. And why not? Spirit Magic Spells I approve of suggesting extra names for these spells. Your example of the farmer learning Wound as well as Slay Pest doesn't mention the real reason: it's embarrassing to look like a hick in combat. You should also note that spell effects vary as well as the names. I'm a Humakti, and have piously learned Swordsharp 4. Cast on a spear, this spell will have exactly NO effect: it isn't "Bladesharp by another name", but a different, distinct spell. Get people used to thinking like this and we'll have a lot more realism and fun in our games. Befuddle: the kind of "clever management" that would be needed now beggars belief. Cut this reference from the spell description: it's hardly plausible any more. Also, as a 2-point spell, Befuddle seems less useful than Demoralize. Ignite: don't call it "Vangono's Breath": wrong continent for the basic rule book! Mobility: also called "Athlete's Foot". Divine Magic I've always preferred to call it "Rune magic", and would be delighted if the Gloranthan-once-more RQ4 rules reverted to this name. ("Battle magic" never really gripped me). I'd like to propose one general sweeping change: "one-use" (initiate-style) Divine magic should be changed to "one use per year", renewed at the High Holy Day ceremony. This makes all the difference in realism and balance when you're working towards the priesthood, and very little difference to character power in an individual scenario or continuing campaign. Consider this: as the rules stand, the most likely man to reach the priesthood is one who never casts his Rune spells but holds onto them against the future. This means he has had less contact with his god on a personal basis than the guy who chucks each point at a foe within a few weeks of sacrificing. Also, it makes players more likely to cast Divine magic regularly without the kind of agonising - is this fight important enough to be worth one point of permanent POW? two? three? - that otherwise goes on. Rune spells that are defined as one-use for a cult are indeed "fire and forget": they still cost permanent POW to cast once (effectively). Have you considered including David Cheng's excellent RunePower system as an optional rule in this section? It makes far more sense than the current system (which still suffers from shades of the D&D cleric), and is easily converted to by experienced players without needing any stat. changes. (If you are unfamiliar with the system, it basically turns the list of Rune spells known by a character into a "pool" from which he can cast any spell available from his god, selecting only at the moment of casting). Uses of Divine Magic in Society Recast the last sentence, which is clumsy: "... it can have great effects" is better. Learning and Using Spells I've often wondered why you don't give a straight 100% cast chance. Why multiply die rolls unnecessarily? Spellteaching Nice idea, but poor execution. Most characters are less interested in how much spirit magic they have than in how easy it will be to learn more, which your (status-based rather than time-based) system does not address at all. The old RQ3 rate of one point per five years was plainly too broad- brush an approach, but at least it gave a feel for what a normal rate of gain might be in society. These guidelines help game-masters set up temple personnel; they do not help them determine what spells are gained during play. While they have a use, they could be improved on quite easily. The list of "Some cults (and favored spells)" is an affront to my eyes. What it says is so obvious as to be unnecessary. Cut it from the rules. Recovering Divine Spells Maybe this could be made faster. After all, priests can get by with just 50% Ceremony, and initiates may have far less. A base time of 4 hours would reward sensible characters who learned how to work with their temple. Something that will have to be considered at some time is the interaction (if any) between Cult Lore and Ceremony skills. As divine cults use Ceremony as a catch-all Temple Manners skill, the arrival of a variant may cause some rethinks. Broadly, I'd guess that Ceremony makes your cult actions acceptable to your god, while Cult Lore allows them to conform to your culture's ritual expectations. But you haven't yet said what you mean by Cult Lore. Temple Sites What's all this "if the ... is not holy to the religion" stuff about? If it's to justify the Rent-a-Temple or Cultists on the Move approach to worship, then you should say so. Who ever held a proper worship ceremony that wasn't in a holy site? Especially with the hundreds or thousands of worshippers you envisage (a Great Temple, on a site that isn't holy, with a priest who can't cast Sanctify?? The mind boggles!). And what does "typically #" mean in the temple descriptions? The number of people resident at the temple? The number normally in attendance at weekly services? The number present on holy days? Or on High Holy Days? I get the feeling you are trying to allow a proliferation of small-but- powerful temples by what you write at the end about "particularly devoted or fanatical worship-pers". This of course devalues everything that you have said before. Why have a system if you allow an opt-out clause like this at the end of it? Note on disembodied spirits would seem to apply to almost all shamanic cults, not just ancestor worship: cf. the Malia "temple" in Snakepipe Hollow, and ask why a Praxian tribe couldn't do the same (with a crowd of Spirits of Law from Waha). Spell Descriptions RQ4 should print the Rune spell listing in two parts: first the common Rune spells available to almost every cult, and then the cult special spells in a separate section. This will greatly aid reference during play or character generation. When listing the deities who can access special spells, don't say: Aldrya, Babeester Gor [as associate of Ernalda], Chalana Arroy, Dendara, Ernalda, Gorgorma [as associate of Dendara], Pamalt [as associate of Chalana Arroy], Triolina, Yelm [as associate of Dendara], Yelmalio [as associate of Aldrya]. Instead, say: Aldrya [Yelmalio], Chalana Arroy [Pamalt], Dendara [Gorgorma, Yelm], Ernalda [Babeester Gor], Triolina. If you can't be bothered to look under your associate's name, you don't deserve his or her spell. Use different typefaces or something, if you want to have primary sources stand out more. This means that Lightning will look like this: Lightning Boy {Orlanth [Mastakos]}. I'm delighted to see Soul Sight and Command (Species) cut down to size. Cloud Call: "microclimate" is techno-babble and has no place in this game. Save it for Cyberpunk or Traveller if you must. Madness: Befuddlement is no longer a severe enough penalty: replace with Demoralize? True (Weapon) Yanafal Tarnils (and through him the Seven Mothers) ought to receive True Scimitar and not Truesword. I am pretty convinced that a Yanafal Tarnils cultist who returns from the dead will be afflicted with Humakt's Swordbreaker curse and find himself unable to use straight-bladed weapons. Also that (in Genertela at least) the scimitar is not a Humakti weapon (maybe it works for the North War Wind with Pentan cavalry sabres, but that's a different matter). The straightness of Humakt's path precludes its use; as an a renegade and apostate, Yanafal has passed the anger of his god onto all his followers, and introduced the (originally Pentan) scimitar as a form of "curved Death" so he could still fight.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA13620; Mon, 7 Jun 93 16:48:26 -0500 Return-Path: <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA29255; Mon, 7 Jun 93 17:48:28 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 7 Jun 93 17:48:30 EDT From: Nick Brooke <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Nick's Comments, part 3 Date: 07 Jun 93 17:41:55 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: Skills You have gone too far away from the "generic" RQ3 "Devise", "Craft", et al. As your introduction states, there are always going to be cases where "the GM has to decide what the character's chances are, which will often depend on the situation, what the character does, how the player roleplays the situation, the character's background, and so on." This being so, why the proliferation of one-off skills like Intimidate, Beg, Pick Lock, Set Trap and the like? I detect envy of Warhammer Roleplay in some of your new skills. Don't get carried away. Lip-reading and the like may look like nice ideas, but unless you get a VERY high level they are no use at all (especially if they're Hard to increase); normal folk like me would learn Mindspeech instead, or any other handy battle magic that duplicated the effect I wanted more effectively than practice and effort could. As for Intimidate/Interrogate/ Beg, these are mechanics used to regulate situations where the gamemaster ought to retain control of the game and of his NPCs' reaction to player character activities. We're better off without them. I don't want to have "Feel 5%, Smell 5%, Taste 5%" on my character sheet. It will leave me feeling like a sensory cripple, and/or wanting to increase them to unnatural levels. Better to note somewhere that humans have these skills at a base 5% (but almost never develop them), and to include rules showing how herd animals, fishes, and the like use them every day. These rules are obsessed with "Training". Stop and think for a moment: does the Lunar Army have Scan classes? Jump classes? Search classes? Intimidate classes, even? Would you be prepared to role-play your characters through a day at such an event? Do you know how these skills would be taught? If not, DON'T make "Training" into such a fundamental part of every character's life. Dance [Culture] Why do you think this skill defaults at half value across almost all cultures? Is there something wrong with your imagination? Bargain "The person selling the item will ALMOST never take a loss"? Why this change to a good and sensible rule? Courtesan Better termed "Seduction", unless this is a females-only skill: if you told the Red Emperor he was a master Courtesan he'd look askance at you - if you were lucky! Sing Can you write a description for this skill which makes sense to normal human beings, and not just computers, Martians, and rules boffins? Battle Rewrite the sentence which begins, "The appalling truth...". The Fumble rule here is vicious, but so were the skewed casualty figures in ancient battles: refer any doubters in this regard to me for facts to back it up (makes Desert Storm look like a fair fight!). Craft Alchemy by the back passage. Out on it! We do not want Blade Venom, Scorpion Antidote, Grampus Gas Balls and the like back in RQ. Get this rubbish out of my favorite rules system. Hawking An art, not a craft. But more importantly, who in Dara Happa apart from the nobles do you think has the leisure to participate in this sport? The slaves? The women?? The skill should be listed as "uncommon, rather than rare, among nobles in Dara Happa", or common if you prefer, but not this ludicrous broad-brush approach. Custom [Culture] As for Dance [Culture], only more so. You betray the callous contempt of the cultural anthropologist in your comment that this vital social skill can "default within very similar cultures". Do you imagine for so much as an instant that a Praxian could survive one minute in a Pentan camp without mortally offending his hosts, or that his rigorous adherence to Praxian mores would make him somehow more acceptable to them? The swell-headed belief that "all primitive cultures are the same" has NO PLACE in RuneQuest, and should go out of the window at once. If we make this mistake in a game-world rich in contrasting cultures, what hope is there for the rest of the world? Also, you need to define the difference between Neighboring and Alien cultures more carefully: there are some which fall into a gap in between the two. For example, if I am a Sartarite, the people of Tarsh are my Neighbours, but the non-Neighboring people of Aggar are not Alien to me (sharing the same pantheon). Give it another try. Lore [Various] See my discussion of the benefits of an INTx1% base chance in all Lore skills, next to the Knowledge Modifier rules above. Also, can you write out a good definition of what you mean by Gloranthan, Magic, and Cult Lore. And get rid of Lock Lore: people who want it will add it to the game anyway without needing your encouragement. Martial Arts You need to emphasise how rare this skill is, remove it from the character sheet, and have a boxed article next to it in the far-removed Exotic Skills section where it ends up, explaining what schools of Martial Arts exist in far Kralorela. Nobody else gets it, of course. Greg now denies that Morocanth teach it (his M.A. Morocanth character was a one-off), and Sandy says Pelorian Martial Arts were a mistake. Terrain Types Define these: explain the difference between Broken and Rough terrain, then work out which one is Hilly and call it that. Where in Glorantha do you find Arctic terrain? (answer: in the Hero Plane/Outer World, where normal RuneQuest rules don't apply). Also, can you tell me how skill at surviving in Plains will help you in the Desert? Split up Woods and Jungle so people who don't know what a Jungle is won't have to keep on reading about one on their character sheet; I'm prepared to believe that the skills required to survive in each are different. And a good gamemaster will pro-rate for similar terrain types well enough. Treat Disease "Victims of mild diseases only need attention one hour per day" (NOT one day per week). Drive [Vehicle] Second paragraph should begin, "Three basic Drive skills exist..." The third paragraph ought to require a roll against Drive skill for every day on the road, just as Ride skill, March skill, and the like demand: failure can cause problems (slow travel, damaged wheels, knackered beasts of burden, and the like). Play [Instrument] I can provide you with the text for a box on elemental associations with musical instruments, if you want a Gloranthan context for this skill. Lip Read Urgh. Do we need this? Smell Mention herd beasts rather than timinits (we don't know what they are: exotica). New Attack Skills Remove these to the Martial Arts ghetto in an Exotic Skills and Weapons supplement to tear out and throw away. Emphasise how rare and exotic they are, then never use them or allow them to be used in sensible gaming. Convincing Asylius I hate this kind of list, which makes a single skill roll into the apparent crux of the adventure. Of course the players will get what they deserve; don't mislead new gamemasters into thinking that this kind of clap-trap is desirable in a scenario write-up. You don't do it; I don't do it; nobody normal does it. Why encourage it? Complementary Skills A nice little mechanic for making people think how they do what they do. I like it. Availability of Skill Training No, not the Thieves Guild! Get rid of this twaddle at once: it does your intelligence no credit. I don't believe there is anything useful in this list except the warning about unusual skills, which would be better delivered by removing them from the main body of the game system to an isolated peninsula. ((Kick Parry??)) The rest is entirely obvious and pathetically simple-minded. In a game which includes a good system for character generation within profession, why do you think this kind of list is necessary? If you want to know who uses a skill, you can go to the front of the book and find out. Languages Long overdue increase in base skill. Don't forget the separate area for Language skills on the character sheet. Also, consider the fact difference between alphabetic and ideographic scripts when deciding how Read/Write should work. There are far fewer scripts than languages in the world; some of them cannot be read unless you can also speak the language somewhat, while others have no correlation between written characters and spoken words. Other languages have no native written form. A boxed article on this would be a great leap forward in Gloranthan studies: mention Yelmic hieroglyphs, Esrolite cuneiform, the cursive New Pelorian hand, and the archetypal Orlanthi runic alphabet and you're in my good books. New Skills Presumably the first paragraph of this was written by a new developer, and not by whoever it was who added all the new and useless skills to RQ4. Skill Decay If a character isn't in use, I don't want to waste time crippling him still further. Neglect is the worst fate I can imagine for him. This rule is useless and should be abandoned.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA13788; Mon, 7 Jun 93 16:50:58 -0500 Return-Path: <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA29338; Mon, 7 Jun 93 17:50:59 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 7 Jun 93 17:51:02 EDT From: Nick Brooke <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Nick's Comments, part 2 Date: 07 Jun 93 17:42:49 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: The Game System Skill vs Skill In combat, we are prepared to accept that a successful Dodge evades a successful Attack (i.e: that the status quo prevails if both rolls succeed). Why add a third (resistance) roll to force a result in every other case of skill vs skill resulting in a tie? Active vs Passive Example Replace "sneak across a nightingale floor" with "sneak through dry underbrush", or anything else that player characters have some chance of doing in normal life (outside of dungeon bashes). I've never met a nightingale floor in all my years of role-playing, and wouldn't know what to do with one if I did. Why start new players on the wrong track? POW Gain Rolls I hate POW gain rolls. They unbalance every RQ campaign against every other, as no two GMs concur on when to allow them, how frequent they should be, etc. Also, players distort their characters' behaviour in order to earn them: worse than with other "skill checks", as the potential reward is higher. I would like to abolish them, and characteristic training in general, and go the Pendragon way. Any active character under age 35 gets a free point per year in any characteristic of his or her choice (other than SIZ after age 21); priests/shamans/ wizards would get an extra point of POW on top of this. Coupled with automatic characteristic losses for major (maiming) wounds [-1 STR if chest, CON if abdomen, SIZ if legs, INT if head, DEX if arms wounded by 2x basic location hit points] this would add fluidity and individual variety to the game. (Note also that if "one-use" Rune magic becomes one use per year, as suggested below, the need for constant POW gains is largely evaporated). Skill Training and Research Remove EVERY option to take a fixed increase instead of a die roll. If we are afraid of being unlucky, why do we role-play with dice at all? These ludicrous opt-outs distend the rules and provide shelter for whining cowards. Be firm: let them grow up, or drop out! Weight Loss Why do you lose current and original CON points for gaining or losing too much weight? This seems odd to me. Is there a reason, or did it just seem like a good idea at the time? (For example, as False SIZ doesn't add to hit points, the fatter you are the less injury you can take. Maybe this is why you needed the armour rules criticised below). Characters should just subtract any positive Weight Modifier from STR for encumbrance purposes, rather than literally "carrying around" the extra flab. This simplifies record-keeping and is essentially similar (as one point of STR can carry 5 ENC); why be pedantic? I dislike immensely your rule giving out +1 AP per four points of False SIZ. This makes Weights of +4, +8, +12 into threshold values. I would prefer to give out no bonus at all: let the fatties suffer! But then I'm a slimline 12.5 stone myself, and biased by it. If fat gives no armour but takes away no hit points, it's pretty nicely balanced. You might even allow weight modifier to increase or decrease hit points by itself, to compensate for the CON loss you want to impose. (In your example, you forget to mention that Fatstaff the Merchant will lose a hit point for his sickening over-indulgence: NOT a trivial point). Results of Damage I think dying of thirst or starvation would be among the last of my worries if I was unconscious with a head wound. This looks intensely silly, and should be changed: bleeding to death or dying from exposure are far more immediate risks. Fatigue In general, this system is greatly preferable to the RQ3 nightmare (did anyone really use it?) A few glitches or needless complexities are discussed below. Mounted Characters Cut the long-winded "half total ENC" method; replace it with the quick and simple "plus one to Fatigue class". What does "exact" mean in these circumstances? Fumbles These become far too common with weary or exhausted characters having 10- 20%+ chances to fumble. I'd suggest adding 1% to the fumble chances of tired, 2% for weary, or 4% for exhausted characters. Still tough, but not so ludicrously dangerous. Sancta Simplicitas "When crossing more difficult terrain, multiply the above distances and the practical maximum daily movement rate (and any amount moved beyond that) by the appropriate percentage for the terrain... Modifiers are cumulative... Arlia will have to make another fatigue roll every 0.11 kilometers..." I rest my case. Write proper movement rules that you don't need a calculator to use. Exposure, Hunger, Sleeplessness, Thirst, and Other Slow Deaths Tedious and mechanical rules to replace gamemaster fiat. A paragraph saying that the GM can play around with fatigue, hit points, healing rates and so on to suit himself would be more economical. I can't see anything wrong with your methods, but they remind me of the good old underwater brontosaurus tail-lash rules from RQ3: anyone who needed them would be able to work out a system that was better for the one-off occasion when they were needed. And do you really think you could lose 6 HP for going one day without a drink? Your mechanism is trying to kill people after three or four days, not examine how they feel after one or two - which is by far the more common occurrence. 1d3 HP off for one day without. Combat I hate hex grid combat systems. They upset anyone who can role-play without artificial aids: maps, counters, figures and all the other paraphernalia of a misspent youth. I would prefer it greatly if all the references to RQ combat on a hex grid were removed from the body of the rules and collated in an 8-page booklet (like the old Charts & Tables book). Players who use a hex grid will be pleased as they will need to refer to it constantly to sort out trifling arguments that don't bother proper role-players; we, on the other hand, will be able to store it with our Monster Coliseum racetrack maps as another addition to the rare field of RQ forgettabilia, and carry on playing the way we always did. I hate strike ranks, but you've already read about that. 3. Cast Spell Why should an adventurer who backs up a Rune spell with magic points have to delay casting it? His god is taking the power from him as the spell comes through: he is not manipulating it as a spirit magician or blaspheming sorceror might. This looks odd and feels wrong to me. 7. Miscellaneous Action Which perception skills are you including in the category of "most" which can be used in combat at half skill? Taste? Track? Balance? It seems to me that Scan skills (including Earth- or Darksense variants) and Listen are the only ones that could reasonably be used. Zero Action Options Last on the list should read as follows: "Speaking briefly (up to seven words; speaking more would require an action)". Communicating via Mindspeech or Mindlink should of course be listed AFTER this, as it's presumably less commonly done. Counting words is an infantile pastime that takes more time to referee than the actual speaking does: let them speak within reason for one action, rather than insisting on 7/14/21 word sentences. Maneuver Skill Horrible and unnecessary. This should either expand to fill the rules and eventually replace the DEXx5% roll, the DEX characteristic itself, the Strike Rank system, and any similar concepts, or else it should be killed at once. What can this do that a DEXx5% roll can't? Critical Hits Critical hits are too vicious: enhanced special damage, plus some more, through all armour and magic: why not just kill the guy outright? Oh yes, you need these so you can fight Dream Dragons and Crimson Bats, do you? Well, you should go into fights like that relying on something a bit less chancy than a critical hit to bail you out of trouble... Special Hits, Special Options, and Optional Location Effects Wonderful to see slashes and crushes back in play. Maybe you should run the impale/slash/crush rules together with the Special Options (feint/flurry/weave/etc.) as other special options in their own right: as you can't do special damage and use a special option at the same time, it makes no real difference, but does force weapon users to consider their fighting style more closely. The location effects look fine. Specific examples of which Gloranthan cultures prefer which Special Options are a must: perhaps you could list all the most common Dragon Pass weapon and option combinations, and explain where the others come from? Otherwise this is another "generic" rule that will end up dividing campaigns from one another. Is there really no DEX requirement to Feint? A Flurry should depend on STR alone (the Airy characteristic), and not have a wimpish DEX opt-out clause tagged on to encourage weedy emulators of my Orlanthi prowess. Why doesn't Weave have a Maneuver prerequisite? Answer: because Maneuver skill is a mechanic that doesn't fit into the game system! And why has DEX 13 become so important all of a sudden? It's like living in RQ2 again: thresholds, thresholds everywhere! Dodging by Large Creatures In what sense is an attack "directed at" a location of a large creature? If you're trying to say that humans only hit the nearest bits of giants (attacking limbs if attacked), and likewise rubble runners and humans, why not say so? This rule is sensible but unclear. Rewrite it. "High Ground on Horseback" Call the advantage of "high ground" an advantage of height: it's more generally applicable. Weapons List Glad to see your javelins have caught up with mine at last! Remove the naginata, shuriken, kukri et al. from the basic weapon list and rules examples. Where we come from nobody uses them; where they come from the gamemaster has already put enough time and effort into designing a campaign to create his own weapons list as well. Also, call a shortsword a shortsword, a javelin a javelin, and find some non-academic term for "composite bow" - horn bow, back bow, double bow, anything but this horrible technical term that almost kills the game for me each time I see it used. I am a great fan of culturally-specific weapons lists; if the RQ4 table was broken up into Primitive, Nomadic, Barbarian, Civilized and Exotic weapons I'd be a happy man (and players would produce more reasonably-equipped characters). Overlapping Armour Your new rules (halve the value of what's underneath) look good to me.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA13842; Mon, 7 Jun 93 16:51:48 -0500 Return-Path: <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA29370; Mon, 7 Jun 93 17:51:47 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 7 Jun 93 17:51:50 EDT From: Nick Brooke <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Nick's Comments, part 1 Date: 07 Jun 93 17:43:59 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: Here we go: this is what I had to say about RQ4 last September. Of course, if I'd ever heard anything back, I'd have had some rethinks since then. But that's the way it goes... Och, comments are addressed to the authors, so you guys may find it a little chatty or informal at times. But that's the way I work best. ______________ RuneQuest Four ______________ Comments from Nick Brooke I gained access to a copy of this draft courtesy of Steve Thomas and the Tales of the Reaching Moon crew, and hope my comments will be the kind of thing you're looking for. As requested, there are comments and queries on specific rules, on the general concepts that seem to underlie RQ4 in its present state, and on possible improvements in presentation or contents. These generally follow the order of the draft I have, for your editing convenience. A lot of the suggested changes come from my own "RQ3.5" house rules, which have been more thought about and worked with than playtested, so I can't guarantee what will happen in the hands of other gamemasters. So we're all in the same boat, as far as that goes. On with the show: General Comments Why do you use "1d6" where the RQ3 rules use "1D6"? More to the point, why use "RQIII" where RQ3 uses "RQ3"? You're also sloppy about "statistic" where the rules say "characteristic". This is a contamination from other games, and should be stamped out. You use uncommon and exotic examples in what should be the basic Gloranthan rule book: nightingale floors, Oriental weapons and martial arts, Krarshtkids and timinits, gods from the Southern Continent. If you purge all these references, the game will be more approachable. I feel certain that the appeal of Glorantha derives largely from the published and detailed regions of Dragon Pass and Prax; far less is attributable to the outlandish exotica. Players' Book Damage Modifier Your revised table keeps die rolls for damage modifier, and introduces fiddly "two-sided die" rolls which MOST characters will have to use in combat. I don't like the thought of this. Why not replace these with a straight addition based on STR+SIZ? You could further simplify matters by changing weapon damage to remove the fixed element: where in previous editions of RQ a sword has done 1D8+1 damage, it could now do 1D8 plus an average man's +1 damage modifier. (A complete revised and simplified weapon table follows). The damage modifiers table would look something like this: STR+SIZ Dam.Mod 01-04 -4 05-08 -3 09-12 -2 13-16 -1 17-20 0 21-24 +1 25-28 +2 29-32 +3 33-36 +4 (or +1D6) 37-40 +5 (or +1D6+1) 41-44 +6 (or +1D6+2) 45-48 +7 (or +1D6+3) 49-52 +8 (or +2D6) 53-56 +9 (or +2D6+1) each +6 +1 (etc...) If the sum of STR+SIZ is 57 or more, you can simply divide by six and round halves up to find the bonus: nice and simple. Some random element will probably be needed at the upper end of the scale, (e.g: replacing every +4 with +1D6 instead, as suggested above), but for normal-sized people this should be just fine. New Rules For Movement If we do away with Strike Ranks, as suggested below, there's the possibility of expanding the different movement rates of different characters. Note that I use yards = metres in gaming, and have not changed to metric for this so you can recognise mechanics that alter yours. A character's walking move, in yards per twelve seconds, is equal to his SIZ+DEX. This is the rate commonly used when moving outdoors on familiar ground. When travelling at this speed, perception rolls are allowed only at half chance, and rough ground may cause stumbling. This is also the maximum speed usually possible indoors. Walking move is the base from which the others are calculated, and is reduced by Encumbrance and Fatigue. His alert move is equal to a third of this rate. This is the speed characters use when in combat, or sneaking, or searching an area. Perception rolls are made as needed, and the character is being careful where he puts each foot. Running movement is equal to three times the walking move (four times for quadrupeds). This speed should only be attempted in emergencies, as it is tiring and the character has little chance of noticing events around him, or reacting to the surface he is running over. Running indoors is not normally possible. This rule was written with 12-second melee rounds, but I hope we'll be keeping those in. Conversion of old spell speeds/movement rates: 1 metre/Strike Rank = six yards/round. Skills Category Modifiers Knowledge Skills Modifier This will be more useful if unaffected by POW (which affects too many skills as it is), as if we revert to the RQ3 Knowledge Modifier [INT = Primary; no others], and increase base chance in Lore skills from 5% to 10%, there is no longer any need to list these skills on the character sheet: 10% base + Knowledge Modifier in a Lore skill is equal to an INTx1% roll. The character sheet can have a blank five lines or so in the skill section headed Lores, and the player can write in any that his character develops. (I hate having 0%-base or low-base skills all over my character: if he doesn't care about them, I don't want to see them. Please take Martial Arts and Shiphandling off the RQ4 character sheet; also, shift all Language skills [spoken and written] to a separate region so they're all together: cf. the old Games Workshop RQ2 character sheets for an early example of how to do this). This rules change not only clears up the character sheet; it also helps the gamemaster judge how useful a Lore is: if a player wants his character to know something that you wouldn't hand out on an INTx1% roll, apply a skill penalty. If you'd let anyone normal have it on an INTx3% roll, allow him to roll on Lorex3% if that's better. And so on. (Sorry, but I can't be bothered with politically-correct "he or she" or "they" throughout). Magical Skills Modifier Presumably not affected by STR? But you know that already (I hope). Skills Modifiers: an alternative use We all know that altering every skill on the character sheet every time a character makes a POW gain roll, sacrifices for Rune magic, ages, or gains or loses any other characteristic, is one of the most irritating features of the RQ3 system. What's more, skill modifiers as written don't make that much difference between starting characters most of the time. And all characters' skills begin at the same level if they're in the same profession (per RQ3 at least). You could change all this, by saying that skill modifiers work differently when a character is first generated and when he is played. At character generation, a player can roll 1D6 per point of modifier and add (if a positive modifier) or subtract (negative) the result from any of his skills in the appropriate category. The net effect of this is to reduce the overall blanket effect of skill modifiers: most categories have more than "3.5" skills in them; it does, however, allow a character to begin with a natural aptitude for some skills of his choice. Maybe limit this so none go above 75%, or up more than +25%, or double base chance, or whatever (for game balance). And negative modifiers might have to be spread out over all the skills in a category. Thereafter, skill category modifiers do NOT add to skill percentages, only to experience rolls (which is pretty important anyway in RQ3). Perhaps they also affect initial levels in skills with 0% base chance. Whatever, you don't need to alter your whole character sheet (or play by one of those conventions where you "remember to add the bonus/subtract the penalty every time you make a skill roll" [only forgetting when it's a penalty, of course]). What do you think of that? Strike Ranks One of the most clunky and unreasonable mechanisms in every edition of RuneQuest, strike ranks became more so with the change from RQ2 (12 per round) to RQ3 (only 10, thus less differentiation possible). Can't we do away with them altogether? They are practically the last vestige of "threshold" characteristic values (i.e: DEX 16 is disproportionately better than DEX 15), and this will be more of a problem when you allow players to "buy up" deficient characteristics. Spell casting is in an order determined by power: high-cost to low-cost Rune magic, then low-cost to high-cost Spirit and Sorcery. Magic Points backing Rune spells do not add to the time to cast: why should they? Magic Skills Modifier breaks any ties. If you cast a spell, you attack at half your DEX in the normal sequence. Attacks come in descending order of DEX, halved for the second of two "active" options in a turn (i.e: Attack twice, Spell and Attack, Attack and Spell, etc.). Ties are broken by SIZ, higher going first. The exception is, when two characters become engaged for the first time, a defender with a longer weapon always gets to strike first (or fire/throw a ready missile), however low his DEX may be, if he had declared an intention to attack the character who engaged him. Drawing a weapon? Halve your DEX, or subtract two or three or five or whatever seems appropriate. Missile attacks: with any weapon which used to have a variable ROF of "1/SR", you now shoot/throw one with DEX 1-9, 2 with 10-19, and so on up. Yes, it's a threshold again: sorry about that. Moving is an option (like attack/parry/dodge/spell): an unengaged character can move and then engage an opponent, moving up to his "alert" move distance when his DEX is reached in the sequence/countdown: the attack takes place on contact (with the longer-weapon proviso noted above). An engaged character can disengage: he cannot attack during the round, and may move his "alert" move away after all other characters' actions are taken. An unengaged character can walk or run as long as he doesn't move adjacent to any opponent: this movement will occur when the character's DEX is reached. Height and Weight Height is a basic 4'9" plus SIZ in inches; race or species may modify this basic rule, as may player or GM whim. Weight is (SIZ+"False SIZ") x15 lbs; an Orlanthi "stone" is fifteen pounds, not fourteen, so a man's weight in stone equals his SIZ. For ease, 2 lbs = 1 kg (or 1 ENC under RQ3 rules). You're right: I've taken against up-to-date, metrically- inclined characters (and would convert back to talents and cubits if anyone was following). I was working on a system where you used CON-STR to determine a height modifier: characters who were healthy but unfit were given negative height modifiers (a few inches at most) to make them fatter, while lean wiry types got a plus to their height (so they were taller and thinner). Here are the bare bones: 2D6 BUILD CON - STR Mod. 1- Obese, -3" height -12 or less +4 2-3 Fat, -2" height -8 to -11 +2 4-5 Stocky, -1" height -4 to -7 +1 6-8 Average, no change -3 to +3 0 9-10 Slender, +1" height +4 to +7 -1 11-12 Thin, +2" height +8 to +11 -2 13+ Skinny, +3" height +12 or more -4 Now, of course, you'd turn a positive height modifier into a negative "False SIZ" and vice versa. "False SIZ" should be called "Weight Modifier" for simplicity: as it'll never be listed separately on the character sheet (we'll see "SIZ 15+2", not "SIZ 15, False SIZ +2) this makes no difference and a lot of sense. More on this later. Character Generation Arlia is lucky to have POW 10 and CON 15. This makes her look good when rules which require you to divide POW by 5 or 30 by CON come up. Rurik, with POW 12 and CON 16 would make the rules look more clunky. So will most player characters. Rules examples should be simple, but not deceptively so: showing how the easiest of all possible characters gets through generation will not help those who lack her natural advantages (and will find themselves dealing in 0.05's of a characteristic point). Several "bitty" points here; more will follow when I use the rules for the first time. General Note You keep supplying rules allowing players to roll their initial culture, magical background, profession. Nobody sane would use these; anybody insane enough would create their own. I'd prefer my rule set not to include this generic, soulless twaddle. Magical Background The effect of your "base price for buying Rune spells" (one fifth of current POW in character points) is, of course, that high-POW characters will have the least starting Rune magic. Rules-realistic it may be, in view of POW gain rolls (another mechanic I abhor); world-realistic it isn't, as any fule kno. Also you'll have problems with rules-accountants wanting to spend POW on spells, then buy more spells on the cheap, then spend character points building POW up again. Easier to avoid this by charging a flat one or two character points per point of starting Rune magic (which also keeps 1/5ths of character points out of the system, clashing horribly with the 1/4ths already there in the Spirit Magic system). Characteristic Increases Can anyone explain why INT should not be increasable with time and study, like any other characteristic? And don't use science, IQ studies et al, as Glorantha isn't a scientific world. A common man's perceptions tell him that long studies make you more brainy; if the Gloranthan man believes this, then it's the way the world works. (I don't need to remind you that the world is also flat, and the sun goes round it: is "fixed intelligence" more important to us than either of these?). Sure, make it expensive, but it might as well be possible. Cultural Background Why do Civilized characters get +40 and Nomad characters +80 to their basic skill %ages? A more even-handed approach would avoid having other people ask this question when the game's out. And don't forget, everything is relative. Sorcery Starting spell-casting and skill chances seem very high compared to RQ3, but I'll say no more as I don't know what else you're doing to the system. Cultural Equipment Give specific Genertelan cultures' weapon selections rather than the "generic" lists here at present. Also, rename Bezainted armour as Studded Leather: there is no Byzantium in Glorantha. (Sog City isn't quite the same). And reintroduce some of the "whimsical" items of professional equipment into the profession lists; I was sorry to see them gone. Some Religions (Initiate) The list of "some religions" is annoying; replace it with a real one, broken down by cultures. In its present form it simply will not do. Apart from the above comments, this looks like a sound (though slightly dehumanizing) system. I worry about the sweeping classification of skills (30-45-60-75-90), but probably too much. I dare say this will work better than the rigid or loose RQ3 systems. Well done!  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA15326; Mon, 7 Jun 93 17:34:50 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01232; Mon, 7 Jun 93 18:34:50 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 7 Jun 93 18:34:55 EDT From: jjm@zycor.lgc.com (johnjmedway) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RQ4 character generation Date: Mon, 7 Jun 93 17:34:27 CDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: Regarding my proposed Background Skills/Benefits system: david gadbois writes: >> that it needs is an extra dimension of ability for each category, so >> that you can buy a beginner, skilled, expert, etc, level of competence >> for each profession. That was omitted from my example, but should definitely be there, as should qualifications for buying a package, i.e. must have bought Noble or Soldier before buying Officer, must buy Apprentice Smith 10 times before buying Guildsman, etc. There should be packages such as Levy Militia, Trained Militia, Light Infantry, Heavy Infantry, NCO, Officer, ..., Apprentice Smith, Smith, Master Smith, Guildsman, Official, ... With requirements such as: NCO: Soldier(any type) or Battle @ 15% Officer: Noble or NCO or 1000 Lunars to buy commission --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | john_medway@zycor.lgc.com | Landmark Graphics Corp | 512.292.2325 | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA16030; Mon, 7 Jun 93 17:59:53 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01799; Mon, 7 Jun 93 18:59:56 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 7 Jun 93 18:59:58 EDT From: burt@ptltd.com (Burton Choinski) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RQ4 character generation Date: Mon, 7 Jun 93 18:56:18 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: The idea of "Smaller Packages" that provide qualifications for later packages seems kinda-sorta like Warhammer. I never played WH, but thumbed through it a while back and liked the concept. So, rather then (how many is it now?) the large packages with zillions of options, each package would be smaller with a set of skills and maybe 1 or two options. You could then go into the Guards for a term or two, then take some time with the night watch to up skills used by them. Then you can leave and become a thug, or a mercenary, since you have the training required. I take it each package would list the professions you may enter next (or add to your list of possibilities) like in WH? -- Burton  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA16323; Mon, 7 Jun 93 18:11:03 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA02148; Mon, 7 Jun 93 19:11:06 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 7 Jun 93 19:11:09 EDT From: burt@ptltd.com (Burton Choinski) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Runes Date: Mon, 7 Jun 93 19:07:28 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: Question: Are there any runes NOT mentioned in any RQ3 product that existed in RQ2? Paul mentions the implicit Enchant Slave Bracelets and Enchant Slave collar for Ompalam, which implies a Slavery rune. What I'm getting at, are there "Missing Runes"? And if so, should we add more? Slavery makes a nice balance to Mastery, Fate balances Luck, etc. The classic "elements" have opposites, so should there not be balances to other runes? I figure Harmony is opposite of disorder (not Law), with Law the opposite of Chaos. Only the truly "Big Guns" runes have no opposites: Infinity, for example. That's why it takes so much effort to master them...look at it as a lever pushed up on the ends by the force of the rune...with nothing to counteract Infinity, you have an "incline". -- Burton  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA16958; Mon, 7 Jun 93 18:35:51 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA02715; Mon, 7 Jun 93 19:35:52 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 7 Jun 93 19:35:55 EDT From: "Loren Miller" To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Loren's comments on RQ4, part 1 Date: 7 Jun 93 19:33:36 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: Following Nick's lead, here is the compilation of my opinions on RQ4. Some are as Ollie originally saw them. Others are edited to reflect my new opinions. PROFESSIONS The profession creation rules are acceptable, though minimal. I hope they'll be easier to use once typeset than they are now. I would like to see a supplemental list of professions, with such character types as: assassin; samurai (noble with high weapon skill); and weapon-artist. By the way, I hope everybody realizes that the present direction of development will transform RQ from a simplistic skill based system with improvement based on skill use to a complex class and skill hybrid system with experience points (with a strong resemblance to RoleMaster), and that this might alienate a LOT of RQ players. I think this could be alleviated in part if the professions weren't so all inclusive. For instance, there's no reason a character with the noble profession needs to have a primary weapon. Especially if he's a simpering plutocratic wimp, he might hire bodyguards to do all the tough work. If he wants to have a primary weapon, then let him also take the honorary officer of the town guard profession (foot or mounted soldier, to be exact). This would also go a long way towards simplifying the problem of buying back skills when you have multiple professions, and it would get rid of a funny problem people noted in RQ3 and RQ4, that expert farmers are expert fighters too. COMMENT, BRING BACK CHARISMA [Quoting James Wadsley, but I agree 100%. --LJM] I think that turning Charisma into Appearance has really removed a useful part of the game from Runequest. I think, also, that most people like to overlook the fact that attractive people do better. For this reason, APP is made secondary. In reality, especially in less informed times, people are judged solely on their looks in many circumstances. For example, when choosing the next Runelord or High Priest ( when places are limited ), I would think that APP ( or more appropriately Charisma ) would be the major factor. Get rid of APP. Get rid of the Charisma component of POW. Power is too important anyway. Bring back Charisma!!! CHARACTERISTIC INCREASE RQ2 limited STR and CON to the maximum of SIZ, STR, and CON. Presumably this was so that you couldn't just raise your STR or CON to 21. But under the new RQ4 rules the maximum scores are 1.5 times the original score. Isn't it time we got rid of the Str/Con/Siz cap and just went with the max at 1.5 original? You would have to train both SIZ and CON up to 21 to get 21 HP, which means both would have to start at 14 or over. Same deal with STR and SIZ for damage bonus. I also agree with Nick that INT increases should be allowed. They were a necessity for the RQ3 sorcery rules. Not having them reduces your flexibility. If you don't want to allow them in your campaign, don't, but don't pretend that nobody will allow INT to increase. Set a viable cost and play the game. COMMENTS ON TYPES OF DAMAGE I was reading over the new rules and noticed the healing section rules changes, which appear to have been inspired by the non- lethal combat rules in Tales of the Reaching Moon #6. They are interesting, but misplaced, and I don't think they go far enough. By the way, your other combat modifications make combat very complex. Not everybody likes to run wargame-style combat. Can you make some of the new rules optional so we can have a simple set of core combat rules? The Natural Healing section said that half the damage inflicted by soft or light blunt weapons is short term damage, and half real damage, short term damage fading away quickly. Also, padded weapons and friendly grappling are only one fourth real damage, the rest being short term. The problem with these rules, which are a really good idea, is they have a *major* effect on the game and are very ill-defined, the referee has too little guidance on how to interpret them. Try the following on for size. Add this as an optional rule in "Results of Combat: Damage" [PB p.49]. 1. most weapons do lethal damage. this is the normal, long-term damage that we're used to in RQ. damage heals at 1D3 points per hit location per week, if you make a health roll. All slashing and impaling weapons, and blunt weapons of 1 Enc or more, cause lethal damage. 2. semi-lethal damage. this is half long-term damage (round down), and half short-term damage (round up) which heals at 1D3 points per hit location per 5 minutes if resting, 1D3-1 if not resting. semi-lethal damage is inflicted by natural attacks like punches, kicks, head butts, grapples, throws (except on rocks), by padded weapons of SR 0 or 1, and by light blunt weapons (less than 1 Enc). 3. non-lethal damage. this is one fourth long-term damage (round down), and three fourths short-term damage (round up). non-lethal damage is inflicted by padded weapons of SR 2 or 3, or when opponents Fight Fair. 4. play. this is all short term damage, and is done by toy weapons like pillows, wet towels, and food. :-) Also describe short-term and long-term (normal) damage in the Healing section. NEW SKILL, FIGHT FAIR: Along the same lines, most non-aggressive people fight fair when they fight at all. They attempt to minimize the permanent damage that their attacks do. Thus, they attempt to hit where it won't break bones or cause long term bleeding. This can be simulated by adding a knowledge skill "Fight Fair" (aka Peaceful Arts, Brawling, Play Fighting, Roughhousing, Sport Fighting), which reduces by one the level of lethality of attacks. For instance, Honorius the Hoplite knows Punch at 64% and Fight Fair at 58%. In a friendly brawl, he attacks Gareth the Gaul and rolls a 24, which turns his attack from a semi-lethal into a non-lethal attack, reducing the proportion of permanent damage to total damage from 1/2 to 1/4. His damage roll is 8 for 8 hit points, of which 6 points are short-term damage and 2 points are long-term damage. The next turn, he rolls a 62, succeeding at Punch but not at Fight Fair. Another damage roll inflicts 6 points of damage, 3 of which are short-term damage and 3 long-term damage. This rule gets rid of one problem I have with the stunning rules as they stand. If you critical hit then you do full damage instead of reduced damage, thus you get the opposite result from what you intended. IMHO, critical hits should be extremely *good* results, meaning that you did what you meant to do very well. Thus, a critical hit when attempting to subdue someone should not accidentally kill them. Accidents should occur on bad rolls, not good ones. If we used a Fight Fair skill instead, situations like this, which change the meaning of a critical hit from good to bad, would not happen. COMMENT, MARTIAL ARTS Also, if we implement this skill, we might as well get rid of Martial Arts at the same time. Martial Arts is a broken skill, imho. It attempts to make martial artists dangerous by making their punches do about as much damage as a light mace, and their kicks compare favorably to bastard swords. But this isn't the way that martial arts work in the real world, at least from my limited experience and that of my friends. Martial Arts training teaches several things. It doesn't simply teach how to break bricks. 1. How to fall. This is Acrobatics skill, or perhaps Dodge. 2. How to fight fair. This is the Fight Fair skill, above. It includes how to pull attacks, how to stop attacks short of full contact, and other ways that keep students and teachers alive. If you attack successfully, and simultaneously succeed with the Fight Fair skill, you reduce the lethality of the attack by one, from lethal to semi-lethal to non- lethal to play. A special success at Fight Fair will reduce the attack two lethality classes. A critical success reduces by three lethality classes (any damage to Play). Society usually expects people to fight fair unless they are at war and will usually punish those who do not. 3. How to punch hard. This is a twist of the wrist that maximizes the force of a punch. Still, boxers learn it, as does everybody who learns how to fight from an instructor, so I don't think it is the obscure knowledge skill known in RQ as Martial Arts. Instead, I suspect that a full strength punch, which strikes its target without being deflected, does about 3 HP plus damage bonus in RQ terms. 4. How to fight dirty (aka street fighting, self-defense). This is the converse of the Fight Fair skill, above. If you attack successfully with a semi-lethal, non-lethal, or play weapon, and simultaneously succeed with a Fight Dirty skill, then you increase the lethality of the weapon by one, from play to non-lethal to semi-lethal to lethal. A special success moves up two lethality classes. A critical success moves up three lethality classes. 5. Where to hit. Martial Arts teach advanced students (black belt or higher) how to target weak points, pressure points. *This* is the semi-magical skill which, imho, the RQ Martial Arts skill was intended to emulate. Let's replace Martial Arts with a Pressure Points skill. The description would say that a martial artist that aims at a specific location and hits it with *any* weapon or hand attack, simultaneously succeeding with Martial Arts, increases the severity of the hit by one, shifting the attack from normal to special, or special to critical, success. Whatever this skill is called, it should be a very hard knowledge skill with a prerequisite of anatomy or First Aid at 60% or more. COMBAT EFFECTS I agree with Nick that Criticals are too severe. Criticals were good enough in RQ2. There they either ignored armor or doubled in effect. RQ3 boosted their power, making them ignore armor and do full damage. I think this is more than you need. It makes criticals instant kills. If you want them to be instant kills, then call them instant kills. But I don't want instant kill rules based on lucky strikes in my game. That's what the damage roll is for. I'll take "nice shot" rules based on luck, though, like those in RQ2. Anyway, the RQ4 rules are way too severe. Also, combine all the special effects of attacks into one list. Then say "If you intend to perform a special action, then declare it before you make your attack roll. If the attack is a special success, then you may apply the special attack. For instance, you could declare ahead of time that you wanted to trip your opponent with your spear. A normal success would just do normal damage, which could be reduced if you were pulling your blow. A special or critical success means you trip your opponent, rather than sticking your spear clean through his chest as under the old RQ rules. If you do not declare beforehand, a special attack with a pointed weapon will impale, a cutting weapon will knockback, and a bashing weapon will knockback." COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS, FATIGUE After using them in a session last night, I have to say I really, really, really, Really *like* the new fatigue rules, both longterm and shortterm. However, the rules aren't as clear as they should be on them, and playing them isn't very easy right now, for a couple of reasons. 1. the rules for traveling and long-term fatigue loss and recovery are separated in the notes from the rules for exposure, lack of water, and lack of food. They should be together. Make one section for Travel, and put the long-term fatigue rules in there, along with all other rules for travel on the daily or weekly scale. There should probably be notes on hunting for provisions, as well. [This was already implemented and added in the Draft 2.0 Rules. That's why the world rules and travel rules got combined, because I tried to use them and couldn't find them. --LJM] 2. the character sheet needs a section for fatigue classes. I think it should also include a summary of the rules, so that a character who is told his fatigue class went down to Exhausted knows the exact game effects. I know we don't yet have an official one-page character sheet for RQIV, but it will need this section. [I have a character sheet for RQ4, fitting my suggestions, that I can send if you all want to see it. It's in PostScript --LJM] -- +++++++++++++++++++++++23 Loren Miller LOREN@wmkt.wharton.upenn.edu There's a thin line between TQM and Mutiny  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA16970; Mon, 7 Jun 93 18:35:58 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA02718; Mon, 7 Jun 93 19:35:56 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 7 Jun 93 19:35:59 EDT From: "Loren Miller" To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Loren's comments on RQ4, part 2 Date: 7 Jun 93 19:35:24 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: Here's the second bunch of them. EXPERIENCE METHODS i tried using the experience methods given in the new rules and must say i don't particularly like them. i never had a problem with check frenzy, which is the problem that the two experience methods are supposed to fix, so i don't see the need for them. i also don't like experience point systems, which is basically what the new systems are. finally, i don't think it's a good idea to make such a total break from the earlier experience systems in rq 1-3. i would prefer if the new rules used the old experience system, with suggestions on how to avoid skill check frenzy, and perhaps gave one of the new methods as an option. of course, this also would force a change in the easy/medium/hard/very hard skill structure. Perhaps they should simply have extra bonuses or penalties to skill rolls, like steve maurer's idea in maurer heroquest? On reflection, I'd like to see only one difficulty level for skills. Get rid of all the multileveled skills and all the skills that encompass other skills. This is not elegant, guys. This is a mess. This done, you may suggest that when rolling for skill increases you can only roll for 10 skills or so. I think that my objection to a limited number of skill increase rolls sprang from the overly restrictive number and from the "rules weenie feel" I got when this rule was combined with the multiple level of difficulty rule. SKILL CHECK FRENZY Frankly, I don't have a big problem with skill check frenzy. I would prefer if the RQ4 draft rules gave a couple options for GMs so that they could use the old fashioned skill check rules if they wanted or the new ones, with X checks at the end of the adventure, if that's what they wanted. However, I think the number of skill increases recommended in the rules is far too low. A single increase roll for a hard skill (costs 3 experience points) after a short adventure is far too little a reward for some campaigns. In some campaigns you want the characters to advance very quickly, because their beginning threats are dangerous but the ultimate opponents are awesome, so you want them to advance more quickly than the "one skill roll per week" norm. Also, from the GM's POV I hate experience point systems. I want experience to be mechanical. That's one of the primary reasons I run RQ rather than some other game. The others are the POW vs POW table and the SR system, hit locations, and the use of SIZ. MODIFICATION, CONTESTS OF SKILL, THE AGON The rules in the second playtest version are a good start. The problem I see with them is they are statistically almost identical to the following, except they require an extra roll. So why not strike a blow for elegance and cut out the extra roll with the following rules? I can't find the actual rules in the draft right now, so please expand to "officialese" language. Sometimes one character must pit his skill against a skilled opponent who wants to prevent him from succeeding. For instance, Cormac may want to hide from the senator's guards who are searching the villa grounds after a hue and cry alerted them to an assault in the street outside, or Nikolas may want to pick a lock devised by a master locksmith. In all such situations the "contest of skills" is resolved by rolling for success for both sides. If one side succeeds and the other doesn't, or if one side has a better level of success than the other (special versus normal success, critical versus special, etc) then the side with the better level of success (or failure) prevails. If the contestants succeed equally, both succeeding, criticaling, or failing, then the one who succeeds by more, or fails by less, is the winner. Ties go to the active skill, not to the resistive one. In case of special or critical success, count the margin from the chance to attain a level of success, not from the total skill. Example For instance, Cormac is hidden behind a hanging in a chamber when a guard sticks a torch in and peeks into the room. Cormac's Hide skill is 49 and he rolls a 23 for a success with a margin of 26. The guard Scans the room and rolls 1 against his skill of 57---a critical success. A critical success is a higher level of success than a normal success, and so the guard wins the contest of skills. The guard spots Cormac and orders him out. Is this the end for our Celtic friend? Later, after having escaped from the guard, Cormac finds himself in the garden and must hide once again from a team of five guards who are scouring the villa for him. He ducks into some bushes and rolls a 3, which is a special success. The guards search the garden and luckily none of them roll special successes. Cormac breathes in relief as they march out. But then they march back in with a captain at their head. He orders them to search the garden again, and scans for any sign of an intruder. Once again the rank and file fail to find Cormac, but the captain rolls a 11 against his Scan skill of 78, a special success. Now we must check the margins of success. Cormac's chance to roll a special success was 10%, so he had a margin of 7. The captain's chance was 16, giving him a margin of 5. Cormac wins the contest of skills and the guards leave the garden to search for him elsewhere. His nerves shot, Cormac climbs over the wall, cutting his hands on the embedded glass, and runs away. end Example When an active character is trying to overcome a skill that has already been used, the referee should determine the total skill of the person who made the item and roll, or simply decide on the level of success and the margin. For instance a lock may be of Special 7 quality, meaning that the lockpicker must beat a special success with a margin of 7 to pick the lock. This will add lots of non-magical but still exceptional items to the wise referee's campaign. ALTERNATE RULES FOR COMPLEMENTARY SKILLS I also think that RQ needs a way to combine skills, so that if you're good at Scout City and Human Lore then the Human Lore can add to your Scouting skill when you have a chance to combine it. Such a rule has been included, the 1/5th rule. Likewise, we need a way of combining the skills of multiple characters when doing something on which they could cooperate. For instance, when crafting a shoe the master could work on the upper while he instructs his apprentice on how to make the sole. A better example is a ceremony---Nikolas conducts a ceremony with Signy and Cormac helping so that his next enchantment, in which he was planning to spend five Power, doesn't fail. The referee decides that any number of people up to the oratory skill of the leader can assist in a ceremony. Nikolas's Oratory is 38, so he can lead a ceremony with up to 38 participants. The current rules don't have any way of handling the above situations. My suggestion is as follows: Use the 1/5 rule. I originally had a more complex suggestion, but the players seem to like the 1/5 rule. However, encourage people to use it not only with complementary skills, but also with cooperative efforts to do things. Encourage the GM to decide how many people can combine their skills at a task and then determine the task leader. If it succeeds, maybe everybody gets a skill check, and if you keep the experience point rules then it doesn't get abusive either. SUGGESTIONS FOR A CHARACTER SHEET [My version of the RQ4 character sheet does all these things. --LJM] Combination hit location and encumbrance chart. By putting them together you can save space and have a nice visual reference to where your character is stuffing all those extra daggers or whatever. I think this should definitely be in the final sheet. It also allows you to note the strength multiples for encumbrance and fatigue roll determination. Got rid of old style HP and MP charts. With negative HPs possible under the new rules they wouldn't all fit anyway. I'd rather leave a good bit of space for people to write out their wound descriptions than take much more space and fill it with text. Put spaces for important stuff like weapon information, fatigue roll, move, damage bonus, fatigue levels and strike ranks on front sheet. We really need a one page sheet for all the good information. Any game that requires two sheets is too complex, like Chartmaster. Keep it simple. Got rid of a few skills. Note I updated read/write to script as per our discussion on AOL. I also combined throw and catch, I don't see why they should be different. One thing I would like to do is cut back drastically on the number of skills, especially those skills that are included in higher level skills. GMs always have the opportunity to add new skills. We shouldn't force them to use skills like treat poison and treat disease when we can use a more general term like physicker or physician to describe the same activities. Also, the propogation of new skills just adds needless complexity to the game, like the huge piles of new skills added to RoleMaster by every companion. RM is already too complicated, and those skill lists are ridiculous. I hope and pray that the same thing doesn't happen to RQ4. Once again, we need to make sure that the necessary skills can be on a one page character sheet along with everything else that is necessary for the numeric part of the game. JONATHAN TWEET ON SKILLS AND LEVELS OF DIFFICULTY Yes, I hear that the proposed rules complicate skills with different levels of difficulty. I empathize with the desire to make some skill more difficult to learn than others, but RQ needs a clean system to simulate this. Tell me if this system is workable: when rolling for experience, you add your BASE CHANCE to the roll. Like normal, you gain points by rolling over your skill level. This means that you'll be able to increase faster with an easy skill (that has a high base chance, like Jump) and more slowly with a hard skill with a low base chance. And for training, have training time based on the number of points you are above your base chance. Note that I mean the PC's personal base chance, not the base chance for the skill. This system allows one to learn a skill faster if that skill is one you are gifted with (high bonus for that skill category), allows you to progress more quickly with easy skills. Is it worth passing on to the folks behind RQ4? Alternate system: Skills that are particularly easy have a bonus assigned to them, like +5 of +10. This number is added to experience rolls and deducted from your "effective" skill level when determining how long training takes. Hard skills can have -5 or -10. Just write it on the character sheet, and it just slips right in unobtrusively without cluttering up the system. COMMUNICATION SKILLS [These combine my comments with Bryan Maloney's comments on them. --LJM] First, LANGUAGE The Speak Language skills make sense to me. I'd prefer to call them simply "Language" skills, however, and call the read/write skills "Scripts" instead. This clarifies that one allows you to speak and understand the language, and the other allows you to recognise the symbols, read them as words and sentences, and write them so they make sense to others. "Scripts" should apply to the use of a single alphabet, regardless of the languages. This is to reflect the simple fact that standard orthography (spelling) simply did not exist until well after the advent of the printing press. In the hand-written days of writing, one spelled things however one wished (in an alphabetic system). This means that, for example, someone who could write in Latin could also write in German, English, etc. with comparable facility, provided their spoken fluency permitted them to do so. This would mean that one could "write" a language in an inappropriate alphabet if one only spoke it but was not familiar with the correct alphabet--kind of like transliterating Russian or Japanese. For example, I can "write" the following: Ohaio godaimasu. Shto? Ah...Dasvedanya--spasebo. I know what those sentences mean, and I have written them, even though I may know nothing about reading the language in its correct alphabet. The ability to write depends upon the ALPHABETS known and possible associated orthographies rather than upon the languages known. Next, OTHER COMMUNICATION SKILLS My players think, and I agree, that there are too many communication skills right now. I'd like to cut them down to a few, non-overlapping skills. The problem is that all the skills available right now are confusing as the dickens. Not only are they redundant, but it's even hard to remember whether they are communication or knowledge skills (e.g. administrate). Get rid of the morass of communication skills and reduce the basic ones to 3 in number: Oratory, Gossip, and Empathy. Oratory: the leadership ability, ability to lead a crowd of people to do what you want. oration, fast-talking, and other stuff where you let the force of your words and personality overwhelm people to where they acquiesce to your desires (sometimes debate too) Combines Oratory, Fasttalk, and Debate from the current rules. Gossip: the general social ability, ability to get along with people as long as you aren't totally unfamiliar with their culture, no matter what they are doing, drinking, playing troll-ball, etc... conversation, carousing, subtle interrogation, and other situations where you want to be subtle in your means of persuasion, so that people think they thought of your ideas themselves, or where you want to find things out without being obvious. Empathy: the ability to understand the psychology of others. Rurik is in a tavern and an oddball starts getting obnoxious with him. He attempts an Empathy roll to tell if the oddball is just drunk and stupid, or if he's trying to pick a fight for some more sinister reason. Use like the psychology roll in Call of Cthulhu. Also used to detect obvious lies. and then a few specialist ones: Courtesan: self explanatory Bargain: the art of bargaining. Buy low, sell high. Also used, with Empathy, for Bribery. Finally, something to give those people who get several different social abilities an advantage over those who only want to buy Oratory or Intimidate and use it for everything... Contacts. Either modify the area knowledge type skills to include contacts, or allow one contact per point, or something like that. Contacts are core part of the newer, roleplaying intensive point based game systems, and RQ shouldn't ignore a good idea just because somebody else thought of it first. Third, SCRIPTS This is the kind of thing that I would give to my players to explain how scripts worked. I never wrote it for my Stormbringer game, as the implications were fairly apparent to the players. I've also put in the 30/60/90 stuff (levels of mastery) we were talking about. Script: Scripts in use in Genertela include: Western, Pelorian, and Orlanthi. Any lettered person may use any script in order to write any language which they know, so a literate orlanthi could use the Orlanthi script to write Sartar, Tradetalk, Lunar and would be able to read what he had written. In order to read this, another would need to know both the script and the spoken language, the script in order to translate the written symbols into sounds, and the language in order to understand the sounds. Note that before the advent of the printing press spelling and punctuation wasn't standardized, it was up to the individual, so reading will always be more laborious than we moderns might think, and may be extremely difficult when trying to interpret those with especially eccentric ideas on spelling and punctuation. Levels of mastery and abilities (levels of mastery are, apprentice from 30% to 59%, journeyman from 60% to 89%, and master from 90% on up). 30% -- apprentice level script, good enough to work as an apprentice scribe or copyist but may not be able to understand some texts that have eccentric choices in spelling and punctuation. When reading a text the apprentice must read aloud, and often must repeat a passage several times until the correct pronunciation and emphasis becomes obvious. It takes twice the usual time to read a text, and a skill roll is necessary. The apprentice will read long documents slowly. Someone who knows a script at this level cannot read a texts without vocalizing or subvocalizing. 60% -- journeyman level script, good enough to work as a scribe or copyist. can read written text at the usual speed, which would allow reading of a scroll or book slightly slower than it would be spoken aloud. They must read texts aloud, unless they are intended to be very easy to read, but can usually get the meaning of a phrase the first time through. A journeyman scribe may read without speaking the words at half speed if he subvocalizes, or at one tenth speed if he refrains from speaking at all. This may still be useful if the scribe suspects that a curse lies on those who speak the words of a particular text. 90% -- master level script, good enough to work as a supervisor and instructor of scribes and copyists. The master may read written text quickly, more quickly than he may speak it aloud. The master generally subvocalizes whatever he reads, but familiar or especially easy to read texts, especially those in a language with which the master scribe has also mastered, may be read without doing so, and at a vastly increased speed. The master may read a text that he would normally subvocalize at half speed if he consciously refrains from speaking the words, for instance to avert a curse. -- +++++++++++++++++++++++23 Loren Miller LOREN@wmkt.wharton.upenn.edu There's a thin line between TQM and Mutiny  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA17325; Mon, 7 Jun 93 18:45:21 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA02923; Mon, 7 Jun 93 19:45:23 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 7 Jun 93 19:45:25 EDT From: "Loren Miller" To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Loren's comments on RQ4, part 3 Date: 7 Jun 93 19:43:26 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: Here's the third lot of them, and I think the last one of this gang. PROPOSAL, FIRST AID I'd like to propose a change in the way first aid works, so that you can no longer cure damage with the first aid skill, and so that failed rolls are neither unimportant nor assured death. Here goes. First Aid: The rough and ready art, often practiced by soldiers, of field medicine. This allows one to stop a wound from bleeding, to splint a broken limb, or to fashion a rough sling. A successful roll will stop a wound from bleeding in one round, and splint a broken limb or fashion a sling within five minutes. A failed roll will require four rounds to stop a wound from bleeding, and twenty minutes to splint a broken limb or make a sling, and the patient must make a CONx5 roll or pass out from pain because of rough treatment. A fumbled roll will not stop bleeding, the patient will bleed to death unless helped magically before that time, and will not fashion a useful splint or sling, and the patient must roll CONx3 or less or fall unconcious from incompetent and painful treatment. A Special stops blood loss in 1 rnd, heals 1 pt after 5 min, will stop bleeding as a result of a fumbled First Aid. A Critical success is as a special success, but heals 1d3 HP after 5 minutes. Unless it succeeds specially or critically, First Aid will not restore hit points of damage, prevent infection, or otherwise heal wounds. It will only stop them from getting worse quickly. The reason for the First Aid change is threefold: under RQ2 first aid would not restore hit points lost, though it would stop bleeding. RQ3 changed this, and IMHO it negatively affected the feel of damage, made it not quite as serious. the RQ3 death and dying rules effectively double character hit points. instead of dying at 0 hp characters die at -1xHP. and thirdly, the rules for non-lethal attacks make combat even easier on people who get hurt, as long as the attacker is trying to KO the defender instead of kill it. given these changes I think we can afford to clamp down on first aid. CHANGE TO HEALING SPELL, HEALSHARP Perhaps the healing spells can be modified to become "healsharp" type spells at the same time, which assume the healer is applying magical herbs and add +5% to first aid and +1 HP healing to first aid attempts. Actually, I have adopted this rule in my campaign and it works well. It also gives the healer in the party an incentive to learn First Aid, which wasn't the case before. LOCATION OF CULTURAL SKILLS put the cultural skills first, before the professions FURTHER EXPLANATION OF LANGUAGE AND SCRIPT SKILLS AND THE REASON FOR THE CHANGE IN TERMINOLOGY Language is the skill you have at speaking your own language, getting your meaning across and understanding the meaning of what others say. Obviously, it's only rolled for in extraordinary situations, most often being used only to indicate how properly a character speaks. Script is the ability to read and write the alphabet that is most common with your language, for instance Latin script would be used with English or French or Spanish or Italian. Since alphabets and spelling weren't standardized until the advent of the printing press Script is a lot harder than we moderns would think. LEVELS OF MASTERY If I can get the authors to agree with me, RQ4 will have mechanisms so that craftsmen with different skills produce different quality work, even if they both succeed. This would be tied to an index of the skill, something like 30%=apprentice, 60%=journeyman, 75%=expert, 90%=master (for the critical part of the scale), so that an apprentice, someone who had passed the apprentice level of the skill, could produce apprentice quality goods with a normal success, journeyman with a special, and expert with a critical. With various levels of failure an apprentice could produce something useless, or even with a fumble something dangerous to the user. I'd like to expand this beyond craft skills, to other macro skills (not combat, which is handled with micro skills), but haven't yet figured out what the mechanism could be. I'm open for suggestions if anybody else likes the idea. VARIOUS OPTIONS FOR SIMPLIFYING THE SKILL DIFFICULTY RULES Since you are revising the system so thoroughly, it's time to simplify the RQ skill system. Currently it's very complicated, with four levels of skill difficulty and skill defaults that bear no relationship to those levels of difficulty. Also, the cultural skills are at many different default levels. Although all this may make the game slightly more realistic than a uniform system, it makes it so much more complicated that I don't think the increased realism is worth the effort, or the corresponding loss in elegance and playability. Here are a few solutions, any one of which would be simpler than the present system. 1. Keep easy, medium, hard, and very hard categories for skills. Defaults for them are as below: Easy 40% or 30% Medium 20% 10% Hard 10% 5% V Hard 5% 0% Cultural skills, which would be determined by culture or cult, are emphasized by the culture and the character would have them at an increased beginning chance. This should be fairly high to encourage players to use and develop cultural skills. Cultural 50% or 40% Leave skill improvement rules as presently written. 2. Keep easy, medium, hard, and very hard categories. Rather than computing skill bonuses by summing the stats-10, compute skill bases for a category of skill (attack, defense, knowledge) by averaging the stats involved. For negative influence, use 21-stat instead of the stat. Easy skill base x 2 Medium x 1 Hard x 0.5 V Hard x 0.25 For skill increases, add the default skill to the roll. This should penalize V Hard skills compared to Easy ones. Since this makes advancement generally easier, compensate somewhere else to make it hard, such as with your experience point system (which I still hate, by the way). Cultural skills are listed as in option one, but instead of using a straight percentage, are also computed from skill base. Cultural skill default = skill base x 3 This also makes the various levels of skill more unique for different characters. Trained level would be SBx3, Standard would be SBx4, Expert would be SBx5, Master would be SBx6, and so on. 3. Get rid of redundant skills (such as bargain=bribe+fasttalk) and difficulty levels. Choose all skills so that they cover an equal amount of game time, using the "campaign utility" model (Hero system) to select them rather than the "effort to learn" (GURPS) model. Every skill should be about as easy to crock as every other skill. This makes the easy-medium-hard-v.hard scale unneccessary, irrelevant, immaterial, and incompetent. (thanx to Perry Mason :-) You can keep the present default system, or use one of the simplified ones above. Use this skill set as the base RQ skill set and use it in the chapter on how to run RQ in a non-gloranthan setting. Make sure to publish a character sheet with these choices. Then make the changes that need to be made to the game to let it fit in Glorantha, such as splitting up the medical skills and adding mystic skills like sense chaos and sense assassin, and any other skill mods that you have to do to make RQ work with Glorantha. Make the Glorantha version the main character sheet, but do not make the other one less useful or otherwise inferior. You may wish to combine some of these methods. The key is to look for things in the current system that we can simplify without losing the good RQ feel. TRAINING AND RESEARCH, SIMPLIFY, SIMPLIFY, SIMPLIFY Included are some comments from a player. Our last session included a long hiatus, three years of game time, and at the end I handed out 400 hours for training in common skills (cult skills count as common) or research in anything else. Computing progress took up a lot of game time, 30 to 45 minutes. Though I usually dislike tables, when they would reduce work I think they're a good idea. Can we simplify the training and research rules either by tabulating them or by vastly simplifying them? Andy Skinner writes his opinion carefully and clearly. Here it is. > I wonder whether there is a better way to figure up the training. If > you just take the 1 point intead of rolling 1d6-2, the cost to take a > skill at S up N points is: > > S*N + N*(N-1)/2 > > I think in the future I'll just do that--it is too frustrating to spend > those points and watch your skill go down or stay the same several times > in a row. > > When we spend time doing bookkeeping, whether creating or improving > characters, we usually spend a lot of time doing bookkeeping. Book-keeping in RQ4 takes too much time. We have to cut down the complexity and accuracy of it to make it fun. SORCERY [Many of these suggestions have been adopted for the Sorcery draft rules, v 1.0. --LJM] The intensity required for effective use of many sorcery spells must be reduced because under RQ3 rules they require intensities of 15 or higher to be effective, but in the revised rules you would need to have an intensity and spell skill over 150% to cast such a spell. This is far too steep a requirement for a spell such as dominate ghost. Perhaps the sorcery spells should undergo a wholesale revision... For example, venom is an effective spell under either version, especially with the corrected multispell skill use, but palsy, which is a less radical magical effect (imho), requires a high intensity to be effective (6 or 7+ against human size opponents) which means that only sorceror types who begin the game with 60% or higher in the spell will be able to use it. LATER COMMENTS ON SORCERY As two characters out of three in the campaign use sorcery I need to make some preliminary rulings about sorcery use and so came up with the following guidelines on the power of sorcery spells. 10 points of a sorcery spell (requires 100% or higher in spell and takes a round to cast) should be enough to do the following things: kill a tough human without magical protection between 20 and 80% of the time; bind 95% of all encountered ghosts and ancestor spirits; give a 95% chance of an illusion fooling the target; add 50% to a specific skill chance. Lesser expenditure should be proportionately less powerful. In general, each 1 intensity should be equivalent to about 1 tenth of one of the characteristics of a skillful or tough human. One tenth the weight. One tenth the skill. Etc. I applied these off-the-cuff guidelines in the most recent game session as follows: palsy. fine as is, with one change. instead of intensity > location hp being required, it should be intensity >= location hp, because I think that a palsy with intensity 6 and multispell 3 cast by a 17 POW sorceror should be able to paralyze more than the arms of a 14 HP opponent. phantom . if used to conceal a person, phantom sight should have a 10% chance of successfully hiding somebody who is behind it, used just like a hide skill roll that requires mp expenditure. if used to assist hide skill, simply add 5% per intensity to the hide skill of anybody behind it. if they are no good at hiding, they'd do better to stay close behind the phantom. IMHO, there's no good reason for phantom sight to be as restricted as it was in the RQ3 rules anyway. Those were the guidelines I came up with. I'd like to hear your reaction to them. RULES ORGANIZATION One of the nicest things about RQ2 when compared to RQ3 was that you could learn the rules by reading them. RQ3 was nowhere near as well organized as RQ2 was, and rather than follow the organization of RQ3 for RQ4 I'd prefer if the rules followed a new scheme, much as the new CoC rules have reorganized the previous edition's clutter. HARDBACK AND SEWN BINDING I also think RQ4 should be printed in a hardback book with sewn binding that is intended to last a while (like AD&D, the market leader). Of course this assumes that AH doesn't intend a massive second rewrite of the rules in another year. Given the flimsy crap we were sold for $45 in 1984 money in the RQ3 rules box this is probably a touchy subject for most old time RQ players. At that time, for the same money you could get the Player's Handbook, the Dungeon Master's Guide, and the Monster Manual for AD&D and still have some money left for an adventure or two. So the rules sucked, big deal? Sorcery and Fatigue weren't all that useful either. Compare the binding quality of the two products, and what you got for your money, and it is to laugh. We RQ players really got ripped off. Remedy this insulting error, please. -- +++++++++++++++++++++++23 Loren Miller LOREN@wmkt.wharton.upenn.edu There's a thin line between TQM and Mutiny  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA09792; Tue, 8 Jun 93 11:13:36 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA22511; Tue, 8 Jun 93 12:13:33 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Tue, 8 Jun 93 12:13:39 EDT From: joe@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: enchantments in stories Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1993 11:09:50 -0100 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <10317D546CE@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> In , Peter van Heusden writes: > I think using rituals for long duration spellcasts > could be a good idea. Agreed. No need to make it an enchantment (like in those Mostali-Spells in Elder Secrets); just let long term effect take long term effort. Loren Miller: >> Would it be possible to allow long-term manipulations somehow following the >> schemes of our source material, as above? What do you all think? Peter: > My problem with using permanent POW is: How often do you guys get POW > increases? Doesn't happen often in my campaign. Same with mine. Maybe the concept of "contests of will" not involving magic leaduing to possible POW gains might help. (I read about it yesterday, but forgot the author. Paul Reilly?) > Then: how about con-mp conversion? For Rolemaster, we worked out a system > of trading points of constitution for MP's. Very useful in a pinch - sap your > strength to increase your magic. Happens a lot in literature. The final > action was a "going out with a bang" option. Force soul destruction to get > off major effects for one last spell. The swedish Drakar och Demoner (a system based on Basic Roleplaying, thus very similar to RuneQuest, and the most popular FRP in Sweden, as far as I know) allows a Soul-destroying last spell, using all temporary POW plus half the value again. An easier way would be to allow the use of permanent POW in addition to magic points, sort of an easier way of DI, but with less powerful effects, too. This Swedish system might be the way to get int the beginners' market segment. It's sold by department stores as well as game stores, it has easy base mechanics, and optional rules which make it almost RuneQuest-like. The magic is a bit gross, if one compares the effect for one magic point with Glorantha, but it works. I'd suggest the dev team ought to try and get a copy (mine is not quite up to date). Of course, there's no English version, but there is a Danish translation, if that helps... -- -- Joerg Baumgartner joe@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA01378; Tue, 8 Jun 93 07:12:31 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA13584; Tue, 8 Jun 93 08:12:33 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Tue, 8 Jun 93 8:12:35 EDT From: pvanheus@cs.uct.ac.za (Peter van Heusden) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: The correct usage of POW. Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1993 14:11:58 +0200 (SAT) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: Re the use of POW for long duration Sorcery: 1) I certainly don't think that POW should become an aid to duration. POW is the kind of stuff you use for binding. Its your bond with the World. Your bond with your God. The spell's bond with the object it is enchanting. Not just some super magic points. 2) Using POW for something as fairly mundane as a long duration spell is a touch overdoing it, since it becomes another case of the POW flow. Too much already relies on channeling POW here there and everywhere. Rather make it a more "roleplaying" penalty... like the no MP back rule. (Although I don't quite like that one... MP are a bit like FP to me... It will do if no one has any other suggestions) Peter ******************************************************************************* Peter van Heusden One man one newsfeed CS3, UCT, Cape Town, RSA "How fast are you? How dense?" pvanheus@cs.uct.ac.za - Rudy Rucker  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA09962; Tue, 8 Jun 93 11:16:37 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA22668; Tue, 8 Jun 93 12:16:38 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Tue, 8 Jun 93 12:16:40 EDT From: joe@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Nick speaks: Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1993 12:10:24 -0100 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <10325405812@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> In , Nick writes: > The Lunar god of Slavery is *probably* Danfive Xaron, as I > mooted (to universal silence) back in March. I happen to be editing Greg Stafford's article on the Red Emperor (Tales 8, Free INT 5), in which it says: "... the Lunar Empire believes that the entire empire is the personal property of the living Emperor." Since empires consist of the ruled inhabitants, this makes him the greatest slave-owner of all. > Oh, we'll need a good set of rules for Slaves and POW some time. I'd > suggest that a born slave gets 1D6 POW, just as a domesticated animal has a > lower POW than its wild counterpart: cf. RQ3 Monsters Book for examples. A > captive-made-slave has his original POW, and is the kind of guy you'd clap > a Slave Collar on. Slave Collars ought to be fairly cheap and easy to > obtain... not so much a "magical" as a "natural" effect. Of course, a > slave who rebels *must* have had POW 3D6 all along... Like Trollkin? This leads to dangerous thinking as Master Races (take a look at the result of this in Solingen, where some Trollkin-POW and -INT people were led to belive they were the Master Race's greatest offspring). Do we want to soften up die rolls for humans? If so, shouldn't Dara Happan nobles get higher APP, Storm Buller's children lower INT (alcohol), Rathori and Basmoli higher STR, ...? And dare we allow natural human magicians with POW 3d6+1, as in RQ3 Land of Ninja? Or even higher, as Melniboneans and Mabden in Stormbringer? > This suggestion is meant to be provocative, up there with the reduced POW > roll for Dara Happan women! But the socio-mythical arguments are all in > favour of both these "non-Politically Correct" suggestions! (Now, here's a > can of worms... Yum, Yum!). Dangerous stuff, in mechanics as well as in reality. -- -- Joerg Baumgartner joe@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA03715; Tue, 8 Jun 93 08:35:36 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA16466; Tue, 8 Jun 93 09:34:51 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Tue, 8 Jun 93 9:35:37 EDT From: "Loren Miller" To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Admin: Subbing and Unsubbing Date: 8 Jun 93 09:32:41 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <100729A53E8@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> For everyone who may wish to signoff from this list or tell someone else how to signon, please follow two rules: 1. don't send mail to the list about it. the list is busy enough with topical discussion, busier than we all expected. it doesn't need administrative stuff too. for that matter, please try to keep RQ4 topics relevant to the playtest. Runic discussions belong, for the most part, on Henk's mailing list. 2. send e-mail to listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu with the appropriate sub or unsub requests. ("sub rq-playtest", "unsub rq-playtest") Thanks for your support. -- +++++++++++++++++++++++23 Loren Miller LOREN@wmkt.wharton.upenn.edu There's a thin line between TQM and Mutiny  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA08271; Tue, 8 Jun 93 10:39:21 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA21340; Tue, 8 Jun 93 11:39:13 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Tue, 8 Jun 93 11:39:24 EDT From: curtiss@netcom.com (Curtis Shenton) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Some comments on the RQIV sorcery Rules Date: Tue, 8 Jun 93 8:39:37 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <102863B54E5@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> > > Having recently received the RQIV draft rules via a kind heart and > the magic of e-mail, I have a few comments: > > a) The skills as a manipulation limit instead of free int: obviously > the correct approach. > > b) I don't like the new duration/range rules: access to the better > tables only if you spend a point of POW or spend as long to cast a spell > as it lasts. I don't like the first as I have always seen POW creating > some permanent effect (One-Use Divine Magic an exception), and the > second seems pointless. > > c) Familiars are kept as a requirement for adepthood. I dislike the > concept and execution of the RQIII familiar rules intensely. The > reason for the first is Gloranthan: I can't see any of the Malkionists > accepting that one needs a bound animal/spirit to show yourself to > be a good priest. RQ already provides enough familiars with allied > spirits and shaman's fetches. I believe that a Malkionist would > prefer to rely on himself, his faith and his flock (see below) rather > than an animal or some pagan spirit bound into a ring. > > As for the rules, I just don't like the way sorcerers have to give up > characteristics permanently to form a familiar. The new way of just using > POW to make the stats is better though. Also I think sorcery rules are very heavily biased towards Malkion sorcerers without much attention to the other users of sorcery such as dwarves, trolls(only a few I know), Brithini(who don't worship the invisible god), and a few other oddballs like the lunar sorcerers. But I think familiars seem out of place for most if not all of these groups. How about just placing the uses of familiars into items? For some reason the Lord of the Rings idea of sorcerers(ok Sauron, Morgoth, and Sauroman) placing bits of themselves into special items seems in line with the western approach to magic. > > > c) I still don't see any mechanisms to make good cultural play > equivalent to good game play (like Pendragon's Glory system). There > isn't any reason for a sorcerer to _want_ to be a pious priest. Hmm, I'm not so sure these mechanics are a good thing. Most groups I know seem to do all right without training wheels. ;) Besides we could always add alignments if you want. j/k > > A suggestion to replace Create familiar and to help with priestly > game play: allow a priest to have access to some of the magic points > sacrificed to the Invisible God in the priest's church. This would > take the form of a spirit that occupies the church, with a "POW" > of (say) 1 per regular (weekly) worshipper. The sorcerer/wizard that > conducts regular ceremonies can use this POW to cast and maintain > spells. This would probably be the main exterior source of magic > points to a Rokari or Hrestoli wizard. The Brithini need to Tap: > independant sorcerers would use bound spirits or maybe familiars. I like this idea alot as it would help differentiate between Invisible god worshipping sorcerers and other kinds. (Although I don't have a draft of RQ IV so I may be way off base on this, I'm just going by the comments I see) > > How do you get to be the wizard of your local church, then? > Easy, wait till the old one dies/retires, the Lord selects you > as his replacement, and reconsecrate the church with "Make > Church of the Invisible God", a n enchantment requireing 2 POW. > > What's that? Old priest Wexen is so pious that he's over 150 and > still runs 5 leagues every morning before his "fire and brimstone" > sermon? Well, you had better go out and convert some heathen, and > create a new church of you own... > > I think this would get those PC wizards acting pious (and plotting to > get the new curateship that Lord Owen has promised to create) in a > jiffy! > > Opinions? Sounds good. > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Graeme Lindsell Email: gal502@huxley.anu.edu.au > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- Curtis Shenton curtiss@netcom.com internet Too lazy to do a 4@3091 WWIVnet "real" .sig file Currently working on something, I'm not sure what, for WotC. If you're intrested email LISTSERV@wizards.com with SUBSCRIBE LOC-L  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA10300; Tue, 8 Jun 93 11:21:57 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA22922; Tue, 8 Jun 93 12:21:53 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Tue, 8 Jun 93 12:21:55 EDT From: Carl Fink To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: God Learner Runes Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1993 12:21:16 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <1033BC804E6@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Subject: God Learner Runes Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Nick Brooke <100270.337@compuserve.com> writes: >Loren sez: >> Since the Godlearners made up all these runes anyway, >Not so sure they did. They had the "RuneQuest Sight", meaning they could >*see* the Runes wherever they were. That doesn't mean they *invented* >them; more likely they set down the first formal listing of something >already common to most of Glorantha... >Nick Nick Greg has said that the God Learners invented the runes we're all used to. Various cultures had runes before the GLs, and the Kralori and Pamaltelans still don't use exactly the runes the God Learners liked.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA10298; Tue, 8 Jun 93 11:21:56 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA22925; Tue, 8 Jun 93 12:21:57 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Tue, 8 Jun 93 12:21:59 EDT From: Carl Fink To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Runes Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1993 12:21:19 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <1033C8736F2@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Subject: Re: Runes paul@phyast.pitt.edu writes: P> We keep having reality shifts. In RQ II the Runes were the very stuff >of the Universe.... [remainder deleted for brevity] I made the same complaint to Chaosium a few years back, and both Greg and Sandy Petersen gave the same explanation: RQII was a very "Orlanthocentric" game. Both RQ2 and most RQ3 Gloranthan material were centered around either Sartar/Prax Orlanthi culture, or quoted God Learner material. All those legends were *local* legends, not worldwide beliefs or absolute Truth. I didn't like it either, but we're apparently stuck with it.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA11589; Tue, 8 Jun 93 11:59:42 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA24466; Tue, 8 Jun 93 12:59:35 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Tue, 8 Jun 93 12:59:41 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Runes Date: Tue, 8 Jun 93 12:59:34 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <103DCE20740@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> >P> We keep having reality shifts. In RQ II the Runes were the very stuff >of the Universe.... [remainder deleted for brevity] > I made the same complaint to Chaosium a few years back, and both Greg >and Sandy Petersen gave the same explanation: RQII was a very >"Orlanthocentric" game. Still doesn't explain stuff like "Western sorcerors love to use the standard Gloranthan Runes" from the Player's Book: Genertela. ^^^^^^^^^^ not "Dragon Pass area" And the God Learners came from Seshnela and Seshnelan colonies. Or is that changed too? I don't mind the new picture, it's pretty consisent, but it is _new_. If they are going to pull a major change in their description of the West it should be published, not just circulated at cons. How are freelancers supposed to write anything? What's next? "The Mostali don't really have guns, that's just a God Learner rumor?"  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA11858; Tue, 8 Jun 93 12:06:09 -0500 Return-Path: <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA24771; Tue, 8 Jun 93 13:06:08 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Tue, 8 Jun 93 13:06:12 EDT From: Nick Brooke <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: God Learner Runes Date: 08 Jun 93 13:02:14 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <103F9100174@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Carl Fink refutes my theories, saying: > Greg has said that the God Learners invented the runes we're all > used to. Various cultures had runes before the GLs, and the Kralori > and Pamaltelans still don't use exactly the runes the God Learners liked. What I'm saying is that, before Newton, there was still Gravity. The God Learners recognised that wherever they were looking they saw the influence and effect of the Runes, and were able to formulate lists and pentagrams and periodic tables of them. But that doesn't mean that, before the GLs worked out how the Runes worked, they didn't work that way. And it doesn't mean they created any Runes, any more than Einstein created new laws of Physics. Stick with the Scientist metaphor and the GLs are easier to understand (even if they shouldn't be). Is that any use to you guys? Incidentally, I'm pretty sure this discussion of Runes ought to move to the Daily. I'll not be posting anything else to this list that isn't RQ4-related, and hope you guys will follow suit. If the present volume of mail persists or increases, I'm going to have to un-subscribe myself... Nick  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA17461; Tue, 8 Jun 93 14:24:03 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01011; Tue, 8 Jun 93 15:24:01 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Tue, 8 Jun 93 15:24:07 EDT From: JOVANOVIC@CUCCFA.CCC.COLUMBIA.EDU To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: RQIV, etc. Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1993 15:25:37 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <10644D82B2E@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Some general comments - The volume has become a bit overwhelming. Might I second Loren's suggestion that people try to limit themselves to one post a day? As a general note - your comments are greatly appreciated. The next draft will be a while yet, but hopefully the changes in it will address most of your points - this is not a trivial task, however, and will take some time. Runes - This discussion more properly belongs in the digest - but to clarify my comment (which may have gotten a bit distorted as it was passed down) - as far as I understand it, the God Learners invented a number of the runes in current use, but obviously adopted some previously extant symbols. More to the point, the God Learners spread and popularized their particular set of runic symbols and their particular assignment of them to the various cults they encountered as they spread across the world to the point that they have been adapted by many cults and cultures that consider the God Learners anathema. Western wizards and sorcerers do indeed use runes, but apparantly more in a literal sense than a magical one - they use them as symbols and signs to represent things. Also, their use came into vogue well after sorcery had been developed and taken on much of its current form. Shields - I've had only a little experience fighting with a shield, but I did speak at length to an ex SCAer that fought extensively with buckler and kite shield. His main comments were that although the buckler could perhaps start with a slightly higher initial percentage, the larger shields were easier to use and parry with, particularly when just starting. However, he felt that the AP ratings for bucklers were far too low compared to the larger shields, since once one blocked a blow, a buckler was quite effective, and frankly, bucklers were typically as thick (or thicker) than the larger shields. He also thought the AP on the larger shields were a bit on the high end. The second RQIV draft uses the following values: Buckler (10 AP) 50L 1.0 Heater/Target (14 AP) 75L 3.5 Hoplite (18 AP) 100L 7.0 Kite (16 AP) 60L 5.0 Round (12 AP) 60L 3.0 Frankly, I'd be tempted to lump these five shield types into three categories: Small (Buckler/Small Round) (12 AP) 50L 2.0 ENC Medium (Heater/Target/Round) (14 AP) 75L 4.0 ENC Large (Kite/Hoplite) (16 AP) 100L 6.0 ENC (Or maybe even as low as 10/12/14 AP) Any comments? Skill modifiers - I'd like to get a more general opinion on something that has been suggested by a few people. They have pointed out that of all the skills modifiers, Stealth affects the least skills. The two skills that it currently covers, Sneak and Hide, could just as easily be classified as Agility skills (one person suggested putting Sneak under Agility and Hide under Knowledge or Judgement). To replace the Stealth modifier, it was suggested that Knowledge skills be split into two types of skills: Judgement skills, which can be increased by experience, and Knowledge skills, which must be learned, and cannot be increased by experience (Lores). Judgement skills would have a skill modifier based on INT or possibly INT and POW, Knowledge skills might not have a skill modifier at all. It seems that this might be an easier way to keep track of skills that can and cannot be increased by experience than the current box or no box system, and would eliminate an extra set of calculations for a modifier used for only two skills in RQIII. Opinions? Oliver  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA18558; Tue, 8 Jun 93 14:46:28 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01749; Tue, 8 Jun 93 15:46:25 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Tue, 8 Jun 93 15:46:31 EDT From: kokko@eemeli.enet.dec.com (The Stars Are Right) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: RE: RQIV, etc. Date: Tue, 8 Jun 93 21:39:50 +0200 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <106A4476C41@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Oliver suggests lumping the 5 shield categories to three and making them 10/12/14 AP. This would bring the use of buckler up and reduce the overwhelming protection of large shield. Stealth mod can certainly be removed. Anything which speeds up char creation is good. -- hannu  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA19952; Tue, 8 Jun 93 15:14:30 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA02626; Tue, 8 Jun 93 16:14:31 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Tue, 8 Jun 93 16:14:33 EDT From: burt@ptltd.com (Burton Choinski) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RQIV, etc. Date: Tue, 8 Jun 93 16:10:57 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <1071C9B7CB8@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Oliver notes: ------------------------------------------------------------ | The volume has become a bit overwhelming. Might I | second Loren's suggestion that people try to limit | themselves to one post a day? One of the things I like about the non-digest is a healthy (and rapid) flow of info. I find myself grumbling 'bout lunch time if the digest is late. Plus, anything I put in there is most likely not going to be responded to for at least 1-2 days...too slow (IMHO). | As a general note - your comments are greatly appreciated. | The next draft will be a while yet. But we will be a'waiting. | Runes - | This discussion more properly belongs in the digest True, now that it has peeled off from the sorcery thread. But the digest is tied to the Stasis rune, I'm sure of it. :) | Shields - | The second RQIV draft uses the following values: | | Buckler (10 AP) 50L 1.0 | Heater/Target (14 AP) 75L 3.5 | Hoplite (18 AP) 100L 7.0 | Kite (16 AP) 60L 5.0 | Round (12 AP) 60L 3.0 I have been typing up a combined equipment list, and have been stumped. Are all these shields supposed to be Metal? I remember a Heros article (can't remember the issue) that assumed they were metal, and came up with wood and hide versions for rural and wild availability. These were cheaper and lighter. | Frankly, I'd be tempted to lump these five shield | types into three categories: | | Small (Buckler/Small Round) (12 AP) 50L 2.0 ENC | Medium (Heater/Target/Round) (14 AP) 75L 4.0 ENC | Large (Kite/Hoplite) (16 AP) 100L 6.0 ENC I don't think it would hurt. Powers & Perils had something similar (only three types), but then, P&P is sorta dead now. Perhaps this is the time to reduce the weapons to "Effective Weapons", with a list of suggested regional names for each if you want to have game flavor. | Skill modifiers - | | I'd like to get a more general opinion on something that has been | suggested by a few people. Way back when I tried to get a RQ3 game going (and failed...my group does like the RQ4 better, what we have seen so far) I split the height out of SIZ to form HEI. HEI used the same dice as SIZ. Now, I split the Agility skills into "AGILITY" and "LOCOMOTION". Locomotion skills had HEI as a secondary add (taller = longer legs/bigger flippers/etc). I think I envisioned LOCOMOTION as Primary(DEX, STR), Secondary (HEI), Negative(SIZ). I think I also had a specific DEFENSE attribute that was different from AGILITY. With DEFENSE, HEI was a secondary negative. STEALTH used HEI instead of SIZ in it's calculation. | They have pointed out that of all the skills modifiers, Stealth | affects the least skills. The two skills that it currently covers, Sneak | and Hide, could just as easily be classified as Agility skills (one person | suggested putting Sneak under Agility and Hide under Knowledge or | Judgement). If you are going to re-do the skill coverage, you can just as well re-do it all. In my few attempts to make my own skill systems, I've often come to the following settings: Perception, Reflexes, Experience, Knowledge Perception is the noticing of things. pretty well covered by the Perception modifier. Reflexes is reaction to perceptions, or fast motions. This should br broken into REACTION (equal to Agility) and ACTION (equal to manipulation). Not all agility and Manipulation skills will be here. Experience can be thought of as "Half reflex, half Knowledge" or "half perception, half knowledge" Agility, manipulation and communication skills that rely on judgement and knowledge as well as good body control or senses get covered here. Things like Maneuver, speaking languages, bribery (picking up on cues+the knowledge on how to use them, etc) go here. Knowledge is reserved for the pure book learning -- Lores, reading/writing, etc. This would be covered by KNOWLEDGE and MAGIC. -- Burton  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA27601; Tue, 8 Jun 93 02:24:50 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA10414; Tue, 8 Jun 93 03:24:39 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Tue, 8 Jun 93 3:24:49 EDT From: davidc@cs.uwa.edu.au (David Cake) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Runes Date: Tue, 8 Jun 93 15:21:36 CDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: > > Question: Are there any runes NOT mentioned in any RQ3 product that existed > in RQ2? Paul mentions the implicit Enchant Slave Bracelets and Enchant Slave > collar for Ompalam, which implies a Slavery rune. I can think of only one Rune that has actually been completely removed (rather than just changed). That is ICE, a little filled diamond. This rune was some sort of combination of darkness (the filled bit) and something else, either earth (for the solidity) or water (which would make sense). This has definately been removed, as even Himile (who would almost certainly have it if it still existed, as he has Ice producing spells) does not have it. My guess as to why it was removed was that while the current Runic system includes many sub-element runes (like Light or Heat) it does not have any combination of elements runes. > > What I'm getting at, are there "Missing Runes"? And if so, should we add > more? Slavery makes a nice balance to Mastery, Fate balances Luck, etc. The > classic "elements" have opposites, so should there not be balances to other > runes? I think that it is just dandy as it is, and I think that only the Power runes should have defined opposites. And I don't think that we should add any more. > > I figure Harmony is opposite of disorder (not Law), with Law the opposite > of Chaos. Well, Harmony is definately the opposite of Disorder (RQ2). This is pretty basic to Gloranthan cosmology (Celestial Court, etc. ). I think of Chaos as a form rune (like Plant) and I don't really know where Law goes, but I'd say in the 'miscellaneous' category like Infinity and Mastery and Magic. There are not 'Lawful' creatures in the same way as there are chaotics (so Law aint a form rune, as I see it), and they are probably not even opposites. I think of Law as referring to the natural physical laws of the universe, the physics rune. > > Only the truly "Big Guns" runes have no opposites: Infinity, for example. > That's why it takes so much effort to master them...look at it as a lever > pushed up on the ends by the force of the rune...with nothing to counteract > Infinity, you have an "incline". > -- Burton > Dave Cake  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA21578; Tue, 8 Jun 93 15:49:13 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA04065; Tue, 8 Jun 93 16:49:11 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Tue, 8 Jun 93 16:49:16 EDT From: "Roderick Robertson, SC1-5, x52936" To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RQIV, etc. Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1993 13:24 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <107B10967C2@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Subj: RQIV, etc. >Shields - >Frankly, I'd be tempted to lump these five shield >types into three categories: >Small (Buckler/Small Round) (12 AP) 50L 2.0 ENC >Medium (Heater/Target/Round) (14 AP) 75L 4.0 ENC >Large (Kite/Hoplite) (16 AP) 100L 6.0 ENC >(Or maybe even as low as 10/12/14 AP) >Any comments? I think you need to have a Material modifier to determine AP, rather than size. There is a great difference between a traditional Heroic Greek shield (Seven layers of Bull-hide, strengthened with bronze); a Zulu shield of one ply of leather with a wooden pole/handle; and a Persian woven wicker shield. While they are of similiar size, and would protect the same areas if used against missiles, the protection value should be much greater for the Greek shield. Perhaps something like the following? Armor Points/Encumbrance/Cost Material Small Medium Large Leather (1 Ply) 3/0.5/1 4/1.0/3 5/1.5/5 Wicker 5/1.0/5 7/2.0/10 9/3.0/20 Wood 8/1.5/25 10/3.0/50 13/4.5/75 Wood/Leather 12/2.0/50 14/4.0/75 16/6.0/100 (standard) Reinf. W/L 15/2.5/60 17/4.5/90 20/6.5/125 Bronze 15/2.0/110 17/4.0/140 20/7.0/150 Iron (Don't have the rules here at work...) The values are off the top of my head, and would need looking at. With such a system, more Cultural differences could be introduced (Sartar Orlanthi use Wood, Wood/Leather, or Reinforced Wood/Leather; Sun Domers use Reinforced Wood/Leather or Bronze; Ducks use Wicker or Leather; etc.). >To replace the Stealth modifier, it was suggested that Knowledge skills >be split into two types of skills: Judgement skills, which can be >increased by experience, and Knowledge skills, which must be learned, >and cannot be increased by experience (Lores). Judgement skills would >have a skill modifier based on INT or possibly INT and POW, >Knowledge skills might not have a skill modifier at all. >It seems that this might be an easier way to keep track of skills that >can and cannot be increased by experience than the current box or no box >system, and would eliminate an extra set of calculations for a modifier >used for only two skills in RQIII. >Opinions? Hate the "Judgement" name for the category, but the idea is a good one. > Oliver Since I have only been receiving the list since last night, forgive me if this is an old question, but could you elaborate on why there is (was?) no Catch skill? Someone (Loren?) mentioned that they had included Throw/catch as a single skill on a Character sheet. To me, the two are not in the least the same (else a Reciever could be a Quarterback...) How does one get a copy of the latest Sorcery rules? Thanks for your time, Roderick Robertson Robertson@Delphi.Intel.Com  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA22062; Tue, 8 Jun 93 16:00:40 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA04604; Tue, 8 Jun 93 17:00:39 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Tue, 8 Jun 93 17:00:44 EDT From: "Loren J. Miller" To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Admin: Protocols Date: 08 Jun 1993 16:58:10 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <107E19A602D@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Hi RQ4 Experts, Before the volume of this list becomes unmanageable, I want to propose a protocol for people to use. Please use consistent subject lines, with keyword information, to identify the topic of your post. Subject lines like the following are helpful because they immediately identify the basic topic of your post. ADMIN: The benefits of digestified mailing lists SKILLS: Redundant skills, Cut it out! SKILLS: Redundant skills, Keep them! SORCERY: RQ3 compatible or not? Most mailers allow you to review the subject lines of messages before you read them, so if you are supremely indifferent to Sorcery then you can ignore all postings with the SORCERY tag in the subject line. Doesn't that seem like a good idea? This is a list of likely subject line keywords. You don't have to stick to them, but when innovating with a new subject keyword think about it twice. Is it something that everybody will understand? The first person to break in a new topic gets to name it. Just make sure you choose the name wisely. ADMIN: Use for all administrative postings. I'll use these postings to inform you of changes in mailing list policy or availability. If you want to suggest more abbreviations then then use this in your subject line. SORCERY: For all discussions of Sorcery rules for RQ4 SKILLS: For all discussion pertaining to skill rules STATS: For all discussion pertaining to characteristics. I know it's a contamination from other RPGs, but it is 5 letters compared to 15 in "characteristics". COMMENTS: For collections of comments along the lines of Nick's and my tomes COMBAT: For all discussion of the combat rules, including maneuver, weapons, armor, and shield rules. EQUIPMENT: For all discussions of equipment, including the equipment list, weapons, and armor. This may overlap with COMBAT. If so, use your best judgement. CHAR GEN: Character generation schemes, worries, and ideas LAYOUT: Artwork, presentation, and layout. BINDING: Worries about hardback vs softback, sewn vs perfect binding, flat vs stapled binding, etc. In addition to using keywords to identify subject matter please take care to keep the subject line relevant to the actual topic of your post. It's disconcerting to read a treatise about runes with a subject that mentions something about "story based enchantment". You are the owners of this list, and I want it to work for your sake as well as my own. But I want you all to know that if it gets too chatty and inane I'm fully capable of pulling the plug on it, forcing us to once again use the digest for this discussion. whoah, +++++++++++++++++++++++23 Loren Miller internet: MILLERL@wharton.upenn.edu S sign lists littles what wetland received in phire bonuse --1M Monkeys  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA25000; Tue, 8 Jun 93 17:08:46 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA07457; Tue, 8 Jun 93 18:08:44 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Tue, 8 Jun 93 18:08:49 EDT From: Anthony Ragan To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Equipment Date: Tue, 08 Jun 93 15:08 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <10904311919@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> I can't remember who wrote it today, but I truly liked the suggestion of using material/size matrix for determining the AP-ENC-Cost of a shield. It seemed simple to use as written and added a great differentiation between cultures. I hope it gets added. --Anthony ecz5rar@mvs.oac.ucla.edu IrishSpy@aol.com Rune Chia Pet of Ernalda  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA25729; Tue, 8 Jun 93 17:24:54 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA08538; Tue, 8 Jun 93 18:24:54 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Tue, 8 Jun 93 18:24:57 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RQIV, etc. : SHIELDS EQUIPMENT Date: Tue, 8 Jun 93 18:23:45 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <10949503BC6@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Response to OJ's posting: Runic sorcery: With OJ's new data I now more or less understand Greg's picture. The Seshnelans used some runes inherited from the Brithini, and sorcery as well. Renegade Sorcerors such as Worlath adn Ehilm may have also used Runes and brought them to central Genertela. The God Learners invented a systematized system of Runes, drawn largely from Seshnelan sources (at first) which were supposed to codify the underlying principles of the universe, rather like F=ma or E = mc^2. They probably used the Runes to categorize many kinds of magical and natural phenomena, _including_ religious cults, traditional Western spells, metals, weather, and time. Is the calendar supposed to be a God Learner innovation as well? What did they use for a calendar in the First Age? Anyway, I still think categorizing spells by Runes might be a good approach, after all the God Learners originally came out of those Western cultures. At least this would give us some kind of building blocks for creating spells that didn`t make it into the list. SHIELDS I've fought a lot (16 years), more against shields than with them. The thing about a big shield is that it's hard to get in a shot and you often have to use a tricky shot, going around the shield, which are not as forceful as straight shots. Thus I think that the PENDRAGON mechanics for shields actually reflect real fighting better than the RQ mechanics. Big shields in this system should be worth more points. Given the basic RQ mechanics, I'd say that a big shield should act to _subtract_ from the opponent's attack, but that a buckler might have more armor points. Maybe a big shield should act as a shield + a few points of _armor_. Also, shields vary greatly in construction, with different shield types optimized for different things. Some shields were made of wicker: huge, light, and one-use. Others of leather stretched over a wooden frame, others of metal. Almost any combination of size and armor points could be found. Note that there are some surprises: Zulu shields (one thickness of bullhide over a wooden frame) could deflect bullets. Shaka Zulu trained the Impi to hold their shields at the angle where this was possible. I'll think about shield mechanics and get back on this one. Actually, I found that PENDRAGON captured the feel of (SCA) combat quite nicely, something I never quite got from the RQ mechanics. I would have guessed the opposite from just looking at them. - Paul PS> Loren's Subject Line post presents a good idea.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA27826; Tue, 8 Jun 93 02:59:57 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA10627; Tue, 8 Jun 93 03:59:56 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Tue, 8 Jun 93 4:00:01 EDT From: davidc@cs.uwa.edu.au (David Cake) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Runes Date: Tue, 8 Jun 93 15:58:11 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: The Runes as we know them are generally a God-learner invention. However I wouldn't be surprised if the God-learner Runes are descended from Western Script and Western ideas. However the God-learners certainly invented some (like the Pamalt and Dragon runes), and Doraddi and Pamaltalens definately have their own Runic systems. I have most of this directly from Greg and Sandy. dave cake  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA28538; Tue, 8 Jun 93 03:58:55 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA11171; Tue, 8 Jun 93 04:58:55 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Tue, 8 Jun 93 4:58:58 EDT From: gal502@huxley.anu.edu.au (Graeme Lindsell) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: enchantments in stories Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1993 18:58:25 -0600 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: >In , you write: >>> >The note I just sent reminded me of an old topic for me. When you look at >fantasy and fairy stories typically a mage casts a permanent enchantment by: ... >3. allocating a large portion of magical power to spell maintenance, with the > option to pull it back if it is needed in a pinch (this can be restricted). >Would it be possible to allow long-term manipulations somehow following the >schemes of our source material, as above? What do you all think? > >-- Loren ><< > >3. You mean like in the One-thumb story in Thieves World #1, where the >sorcerer maintains several (let's call them active) spells for certain >customers? These spells draw upon his power and reduce it considerably, >but not enough that he would be blocked from using instantaneous magic. > >I would use this concept for long duration spells, but not for >enchantments. This is exactly why I (and a couple of others) proposed the idea of making the magic points behind spell unregenerable while the spell is still in force: that specific example from TW #1 was the inspirition. (This was in the digest a few days ago) MP are a sorcerer's expendable magical resource in RQIII. Not allowing them to be used while his long duration spell is in force is, I believe, a fairly simple yet flexible way of limiting his total power. As another pointed out in the digest, in the current sorcery system the best place to store active is in long duration spells. Having recently been sent the RQIV draft 1.0 sorcery I agree with a post a few months back saying it was like cutting off a sorcerer's arms at birth (more comments in a later post). As an example: a sorcerer wants to maintain damage resistance 4 enhance con 4, and spirit resistance 4 on himself continuously. In RQ III free int of 16 and 2 POW 8 power spirits would allow him to cast those spells in 3 days out of every month. In the RQIV draft rules he would (with 75% skills) have to burn 3 POW every season to keep these spell going, or spend a season to cast a spell that lasts a season, or (and I think this was the designers aim) not cast them. The last option makes sorcery into a system which, while it is a lot more flexible than spirit magic and rune magic, is a whole lot less efficient in effect per magic point. So much less effective that I doubt I would see many players having much of an interest in playing them, given the amount of effort it takes to play a sorcerer. In the system I propose, where the MP's equal to the intensity of a cast spell are unregenerable while it is still in force,but the duration table is the same as RQIII, the sorcerer above would need to dedicate 12 POW to keeping those 3 spells going (3x Intensity 4 spells).If he wants the MP back, he terminates the spells (which I suppose hecould do just by switching off the MP supporting the spells),waits the time needed for the POW spirits to get the MP back, and starts casting. >-- Joerg Baumgartner joe@sartar.toppoint.de --------------------------------------------------------------------- Graeme Lindsell Email: gal502@huxley.anu.edu.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA29104; Tue, 8 Jun 93 04:42:44 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA11556; Tue, 8 Jun 93 05:42:45 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Tue, 8 Jun 93 5:42:47 EDT From: gal502@huxley.anu.edu.au (Graeme Lindsell) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Some comments on the RQIV sorcery Rules Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1993 19:42:33 -0600 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: Having recently received the RQIV draft rules via a kind heart and the magic of e-mail, I have a few comments: a) The skills as a manipulation limit instead of free int: obviously the correct approach. b) I don't like the new duration/range rules: access to the better tables only if you spend a point of POW or spend as long to cast a spell as it lasts. I don't like the first as I have always seen POW creating some permanent effect (One-Use Divine Magic an exception), and the second seems pointless. c) Familiars are kept as a requirement for adepthood. I dislike the concept and execution of the RQIII familiar rules intensely. The reason for the first is Gloranthan: I can't see any of the Malkionists accepting that one needs a bound animal/spirit to show yourself to be a good priest. RQ already provides enough familiars with allied spirits and shaman's fetches. I believe that a Malkionist would prefer to rely on himself, his faith and his flock (see below) rather than an animal or some pagan spirit bound into a ring. As for the rules, I just don't like the way sorcerers have to give up characteristics permanently to form a familiar. The new way of just using POW to make the stats is better though. c) I still don't see any mechanisms to make good cultural play equivalent to good game play (like Pendragon's Glory system). There isn't any reason for a sorcerer to _want_ to be a pious priest. A suggestion to replace Create familiar and to help with priestly game play: allow a priest to have access to some of the magic points sacrificed to the Invisible God in the priest's church. This would take the form of a spirit that occupies the church, with a "POW" of (say) 1 per regular (weekly) worshipper. The sorcerer/wizard that conducts regular ceremonies can use this POW to cast and maintain spells. This would probably be the main exterior source of magic points to a Rokari or Hrestoli wizard. The Brithini need to Tap: independant sorcerers would use bound spirits or maybe familiars. How do you get to be the wizard of your local church, then? Easy, wait till the old one dies/retires, the Lord selects you as his replacement, and reconsecrate the church with "Make Church of the Invisible God", a n enchantment requireing 2 POW. What's that? Old priest Wexen is so pious that he's over 150 and still runs 5 leagues every morning before his "fire and brimstone" sermon? Well, you had better go out and convert some heathen, and create a new church of you own... I think this would get those PC wizards acting pious (and plotting to get the new curateship that Lord Owen has promised to create) in a jiffy! Opinions? --------------------------------------------------------------------- Graeme Lindsell Email: gal502@huxley.anu.edu.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA11277; Wed, 9 Jun 93 05:41:02 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA04893; Wed, 9 Jun 93 06:40:48 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 9 Jun 93 6:41:04 EDT From: joe@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: The correct usage of POW. Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1993 09:43:14 MEZ Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <1158DA10C55@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Peter writes: >>> Re the use of POW for long duration Sorcery: 1) I certainly don't think that POW should become an aid to duration. POW is the kind of stuff you use for binding. Its your bond with the World. Your bond with your God. The spell's bond with the object it is enchanting. Not just some super magic points. 2) Using POW for something as fairly mundane as a long duration spell is a touch overdoing it, since it becomes another case of the POW flow. Too much already relies on channeling POW here there and everywhere. Rather make it a more "roleplaying" penalty... like the no MP back rule. (Although I don't quite like that one... MP are a bit like FP to me... It will do if no one has any other suggestions) <<< While I fully and heartily support that feeling in the case of human sorcerers, I don't for Mostali sorcerers. To them linking their souls' essence to mundane effects is divine service, since all mundane effects are the fragments of the broken world machine. Since everybody is talking about cultural integration of the sorcery rules, I'd suggest we create a generic minimalist base system with the common rules for all varieties of sorcery, and then plant on the culturally biased special rules. The common, minimalist parts should be: - a skill-based chance of success, not one general skill, but several skills for different effects (may be different spells, or different runes) - manipulation of the effects again skill-based, few manipulation skills or runes - normal spell effects to be paid with magic points - a possibility for longer duration or range, exact mechanism varies with culture (e.g. the henotheist sorcerers could be expected to use Extension...) - a single system for magical interaction with other the magic systems Comments? -- -- Joerg Baumgartner joe@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA11299; Wed, 9 Jun 93 05:42:35 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA04897; Wed, 9 Jun 93 06:42:36 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 9 Jun 93 6:42:37 EDT From: joe@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: enchantments in stories Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1993 10:14:40 MEZ Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <11594B63342@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Graeme writes: > MP are a sorcerer's expendable magical resource in RQIII. Not > allowing them to be used while his long duration spell is in force > is, I believe, a fairly simple yet flexible way of limiting his > total power. As another pointed out in the digest, in the current > sorcery system the best place to store active is in long duration > spells. Having recently been sent the RQIV draft 1.0 sorcery I > agree with a post a few months back saying it was like cutting > off a sorcerer's arms at birth (more comments in a later post). > As an example: a sorcerer wants to maintain damage resistance 4 > enhance con 4, and spirit resistance 4 on himself continuously. > In RQ III free int of 16 and 2 POW 8 power spirits would allow > him to cast those spells in 3 days out of every month. In the While I'd allow one or two POW-spirits to sorcerers, I acknowledge they don't _feel_ right. My foremost PC sorcerer says he's getting sick of keeping track of several regenerating POW sources, and would greatly prefer to have one single source. (Right now he's got a desert cat and a hellion as familiars, and uses two MP-matrices. He tries to keep some damage resistance on himself and his cat, and sometimes he sells damage-boosted swords in return for services rendered. His cultural background is comparable to Fonrit or Umathela, currently he's joined some barbarian raiders.) I tend to agree that the book-keeping doesn't further the magical feeling. Neither does our fascination for Form/Set-spells, which are so damn useful. Both of us despise tapping. Why not allow the sorcerer to build up a pool of "false POW" which is used for long term spells? BTW, the longest duration he did by now was less 2 years, for a sword with Damage Boosting 2. That was all his considerable Free INT of 16 gave... > RQIV draft rules he would (with 75% skills) have to burn 3 POW > every season to keep these spell going, or spend a season to > cast a spell that lasts a season, or (and I think this was the > designers aim) not cast them. The old RQ2 theistic bias. I suppose. I haven't seen those yet, but I dislike strongly what I heard so far. > The last option makes sorcery into > a system which, while it is a lot more flexible than spirit > magic and rune magic, is a whole lot less efficient in effect > per magic point. So much less effective that I doubt I would > see many players having much of an interest in playing them, > given the amount of effort it takes to play a sorcerer. > In the system I propose, where the MP's equal to the intensity > of a cast spell are unregenerable while it is still in force,but > the duration table is the same as RQIII, the sorcerer above would > need to dedicate 12 POW to keeping those 3 spells going (3x > Intensity 4 spells).If he wants the MP back, he terminates the spells > (which I suppose hecould do just by switching off the MP supporting > the spells),waits the time needed for the POW spirits to get the > MP back, and starts casting. The false POW pool I suggested above would fit fine with Ischade's reply to Molin Torchholder (not lliterally) "You think, you are better than we, just because you sell your soul wholesale to your god, while we (she and Enas Yorl) sell it piecemeal?". These are parts of the soul sold off to gain some mundane effect, reusable in part, still creating magic points to be used for powering spells when not pawned to uphold them, but not counting as personal magic points for purposes of overcoming an opponents MP, not counting for POW-skill modifiers, etc. It might be used to create enchantments, too. This way the sorcerer still is less powerful than the corresponding shaman... -- -- Joerg Baumgartner joe@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA11305; Wed, 9 Jun 93 05:43:13 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA04906; Wed, 9 Jun 93 06:43:13 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 9 Jun 93 6:43:15 EDT From: joe@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Some comments on the RQIV sorcery Rules Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1993 10:51:16 MEZ Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <11596E26724@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> In , you write: > Having recently received the RQIV draft rules via a kind heart and > the magic of e-mail, I have a few comments: > > a) The skills as a manipulation limit instead of free int: obviously > the correct approach. This mmakes powerful wizards real gross, doesn't it? > b) I don't like the new duration/range rules: access to the better > tables only if you spend a point of POW or spend as long to cast a spell > as it lasts. I don't like the first as I have always seen POW creating > some permanent effect (One-Use Divine Magic an exception), and the > second seems pointless. I haven't seen those tables yet, but I think it's a good idea to have several scales - casting a spell out of your head can't have the same results as casting it in a rather long ritual (not ceremony!). If, as was widely proposed, divine magic becomes generally, if slowly, reusable, to impose one-use of permanent POW on sorerers makes them an unnecessary ballast to the game. Either leave this rule in, and all of it out of the basic rules (as some queer optional rule, along with illumination and troll rebirth rites), or make sorcery powerful enough to be of interest, and throw out this overly gross POW waste! > c) Familiars are kept as a requirement for adepthood. I dislike the > concept and execution of the RQIII familiar rules intensely. The > reason for the first is Gloranthan: I can't see any of the Malkionists > accepting that one needs a bound animal/spirit to show yourself to > be a good priest. RQ already provides enough familiars with allied > spirits and shaman's fetches. I believe that a Malkionist would > prefer to rely on himself, his faith and his flock (see below) rather > than an animal or some pagan spirit bound into a ring. I agree for the more idealistic Malkionists (at least Hrestoli) as well as for Eastern sorcerers (I'd give those Ninja-style Mandalas), but the rest of them would take a free run at them. Henotheists probably have familiars similar to allied spirits of their respective cults, maybe even drawn from that pool. > As for the rules, I just don't like the way sorcerers have to give up > characteristics permanently to form a familiar. The new way of just using > POW to make the stats is better though. There I agree. If we want sorcerers to have animal familiars, we have to throw that INT-transfer overboard. Even after we dropped INT as the ultimate limit, no sane charakter would voluntarily lower their INT, as long as it remains non-raisable. I'd back up Nicks proposal to change that, though. > c) I still don't see any mechanisms to make good cultural play > equivalent to good game play (like Pendragon's Glory system). There > isn't any reason for a sorcerer to _want_ to be a pious priest. > A suggestion to replace Create familiar and to help with priestly > game play: allow a priest to have access to some of the magic points > sacrificed to the Invisible God in the priest's church. This would > take the form of a spirit that occupies the church, with a "POW" > of (say) 1 per regular (weekly) worshipper. The sorcerer/wizard that > conducts regular ceremonies can use this POW to cast and maintain > spells. This would probably be the main exterior source of magic > points to a Rokari or Hrestoli wizard. The Brithini need to Tap: > independant sorcerers would use bound spirits or maybe familiars. > How do you get to be the wizard of your local church, then? > Easy, wait till the old one dies/retires, the Lord selects you > as his replacement, and reconsecrate the church with "Make > Church of the Invisible God", a n enchantment requireing 2 POW. > What's that? Old priest Wexen is so pious that he's over 150 and > still runs 5 leagues every morning before his "fire and brimstone" > sermon? Well, you had better go out and convert some heathen, and > create a new church of you own... > > I think this would get those PC wizards acting pious (and plotting to > get the new curateship that Lord Owen has promised to create) in a > jiffy! > Opinions? My foremost opinion is: Don't include experience points of any form into the game which has done very well without this mechanistic crutch! Experience points are gygaxic, they represent all that is wrong about roleplaying! I, for one, would rather forget about the whole system, than introduce experience/glory/piety points which have no rational explanation from the character's point of view! By which I mean that any point system is wrong, and feels wrong, unless a point is quantified in game reality, such as a prayer for divine help (=Rune spell). I liked the concept of several magic systems with comman basic rules (such as spell resistance) in RQ3, and wouldn't like to see this reduced in RQ4. I run a world based on this idea, and I'd hate to throw it away, so I'd rather throw away the new system, if it doesn't fit into this concept. The world I run is not Glorantha, but contains some "alternate Glorantha". I think that most RQ GMs play in their own worlds, which reflect certain aspects of Glorantha as well as other literary or historical influences. I run functioning cultures, and if the players characters choose to leave their cultures, thats fine with me. Most NPCs (i.e.99.9%) won't, and the PCs will experience the flavour of different cultures, be they members of one or not. Enough rambling. -- -- Joerg Baumgartner joe@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA12053; Wed, 9 Jun 93 06:56:00 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA07012; Wed, 9 Jun 93 07:55:59 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 9 Jun 93 7:56:02 EDT From: Malcolm Cohen To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Loren's comments on RQ4, part 1 Date: Wed, 9 Jun 93 12:56:13 MET Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <116CE70298E@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Dear Loren, > [I have a character sheet for RQ4, fitting my suggestions, that I can > send if you all want to see it. It's in PostScript --LJM] I would like to see it myself, if not posted. Please? BTW, did you write the PostScript yourself or is there a source file in TeX or something? -- ...........................Malcolm Cohen, NAG Ltd., Oxford, U.K. (malcolm@nag.co.uk) P.S. I would also like to see the RQ4 draft if that is possible at this stage...  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA19079; Wed, 9 Jun 93 11:08:52 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA20968; Wed, 9 Jun 93 12:08:39 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 9 Jun 93 12:08:54 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: SORCERY. Date: Wed, 9 Jun 93 12:08:37 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <11B048174D9@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> SORCERY NOTES (C) Paul Reilly and Mike Holliday 1993 Here's a short description of our system, slightly changed from the version I sent to Oliver Jovanovic. It seems apropos to post it in the light of the current discussion. I lack the time to polish it so it may be rough in spots. Let me know what you think. We've experimented with several ideas about how sorcery could work. Our method has been to first look at how we want magicians to function in the society and then to reverse engineer from there. We also like the idea that there are laws of nature in Glorantha and that the different magic systems (Divine, Spirit, Sorcery) have some underlying similarities that reflect these laws. We also saw that the description of Western people and culture was not in agreement with the sorcery system. We tried to take the descriptions as canonical when building a new system. Apparently this was misleading, for example on the question of Runic Sorcery: Basically sorcerors could dedicate themselves to a small number of Runes, increasing say their fire powers at the cost of their magic in general. Note that we developed this system while RQ III was in force and we thought that some basic things would have to be kept. Thus we kept spell descriptions unchanged and we didn't plan to change Range, just Duration, which was the worst problem. I can easily rebalance this to go with your system instead of the RQ III system. Also, we thought that AH would demand that sorcerors could do basically the same kinds of things, including maintaining several spells. Our system also has a good reason why the shamans and priests are against sorcery: it's not just a primitive prejudice. Well, here's the system: (for the Introductory section of the Magic Book) WHAT THE SHAMAN SAYS Sorcerors are men who might have been shamans had they been born in a natural society instead of among the Termite people who live in dead cities of stone. Without the guidance of nature spirits they live in an unnatural way and when their fetch awakens to help them they poison it instead of listening and leave it a crippled and blinded slave. By doing so they have killed the best part of themselves and are doomed to a fruitless and grey existence. Instead of treating spirits with respect they condemn them to heartless slavery and are deaf and blind to the suffering they inflict. Having killed the feeling part of themselves they are callous to the feelings of all beings, whether man, spirit, animal, plant, or stone. A sorceror at some point awakens his fetch. As all know, those who would walk the spirit worlds must prove their worth by facing the Guardian (= Bad Man) but instead of doing so and thus gaining the freedom of the spirit world the cowardly sorceror avoids this confrontation by willingly crippling his fetch. This evil deed scars the wizard for life, and perhaps beyond. WHAT THE SORCEROR SAYS Shamans are unfortunates born into primitive societies who have not learned to control their own impulses. When their magic awakens, usually around the age of adulthood but sometimes earlier or later, they have not the training to control it with their conscious minds. Instead the subconscious impulses of the shaman have free rein and the shaman, unable to control his magic, attributes it to an external being, the "fetch". This is often visualized as an animal because it represents the untamed brute impulses of the shaman. In the Trial, we master our magic rather than being mastered by it. UNDERLYING PRINCIPLES (Introductory section within Sorcery section) (What the sorceror says in a quick lecture to Lords) Magic is performed by manipulating mana [= Magic Points] on the Astral Plane. Such a manipulation is called a spell. One manipulates mana with Power. Beings with Power tend to collect all the mana that they can hold over the course of their natural cycle, which is for humans a day. The largest spell that can be shaped is limited by one's total Power, and also by one's skill. All spells must be maintained with Power or the mana loses its form and the spell ends. Thus ordinary folk and Apprentices can usually maintain but one spell. Trained sorcerors learn to maintain some of their Power as a Presence on the Astral Plane. With this Presence they can maintain a certain number of spells indefinitely; with more Presence the number and power of such spells may increase. Presence also may aid in spellcasting. If your Wizards uses his Presence to maintain spells he will not be at his full magical strength. This is an important decision that you should make in consultation with your court Wizard. To use one's Presence properly one needs to develop one's magical skills as well. Those with much power but inadequate training will be able to maintain many spells but unable to use their full potential to accomplish the greater magics. Thus as the Wizards in fealty to you grow in power it behooves you to allow them time for further training and research. In this way they will serve you better in the long term. The sorceror may also invest his Presence in an object or being. In Seshnela this is typically a staff, in Safelster a staff or wand. (Although splinter groups may use more exotic objects.) Kralorelans use a Mandala. In Fronela a staff is most often used but the Grand Knights (Wizard-Knights) of Loskalm may use a sword, shield or even armor. East Isles sorcerors often use an animal, as do the Wizards of Maniria. The choice of Focus often reflects the nature of the sorceror or his school. A quick description of the basic system: Apprentices are trained in their magical skills and in the self-discipline necessary to survive the Trial and gain Presence on the Astral Plane. During their early apprenticeship they must learn to kill their base animal impulses or these will surface during the Trial, which can drive the would-be Wizard into various forms of insanity. This is analogous Short term spells fall into two categories: Instant and Active. Active spells must be maintained by a being (may include any creature or spirit with unfixed INT). Long term spells are Maintained by a sorceror's Presence. This is the part of a sorceror's consciousness that he has learned to split off and assign to specific tasks (such as maintaining spells.) Those without Presence are thus limited to short-term spells. This includes Serfs, Knights, and Lords as well as Apprentices before the Trial. Once a sorceror has learned sufficient Self-Discipline and Ceremony he goes through the Trial. If successful he will now have Astral Presence. Presence (PRE) is increased through sacrificing Power in the same manner as a shaman increases the Power of his fetch. Presence has several uses: 1. Presence can hold Magic Points equal to itself. (Depending on game balance we may also allow it to regenerate MPs, acting as a second POW like a fetch.) 2. Presence may be used to shape mana into spells with total points (intensity + range) equal to the available Presence. 3. One point of Presence can be left on a spell to stabilize it. This Presence is still connected to the magician and he may Recall it, thus ending the spell. Presence can be left on spells such as Sense Projection which require conscious attention to use; in this case the spell remains dormant until the sorceror returns his attention to the spell. The point of Presence used to maintain a spell is not available to the sorceror for other uses such as shaping spells. [ NOTE: Balanced against RQ III shamans and priests. In your recalibrated system we might want to say that 1 point of Presence can maintain 1 Point of Intensity. This is a very simple system.] Note: All spells are thus magically connected to their casters and as such may be used to target sympathetic magic back at the caster. Low Magic This includes magic designed for Serfs (or Peasants), Knights, and Lords as well as beginner Wizard magic. Instant or Active magic: These descriptions work just as they do in RQ III (Or in RQ IV). There is no Duration skill: Active spells last until they are released. They may cost additional MPs to use in certain ways, as in the Lance effect from Form/Set. They may also cost additional magic points to maintain for long periods. Task-Specific Magic (Semi-Active? This is a horrible name, think of something better!) MusPeasant, Knight and Lord magic is designed to be task-specific and while the task is being performed normally requires no additional concentration. That is, the spell may automatically be maintained while the task is being successfully performed: it is designed to go with the task. Plow Prayer, for example, can be maintained while plowing, Sheep Song while herding, etc. No concentration roll is needed unless the workman is distracted or interrupted. A knight can fight while maintaining a Knight spell and only needs to make a concentration roll if hit or otherwise surprised. (Like the old Fireblade spell from RQ II.) Lord magic goes with Lordly tasks such as making speeches, etc. Peasant magics typically cost one MP per hour per point of Intensity to maintain. Wizards can also maintain certain spells in the same way. MANIPULATING SPELLS Instant and Active Spells Without Presence a sorceror may actively maintain spells with his conscious attention. Casting an additional spell would require a concentration roll. Additionally, multiple spells could be maintained through use of the Multispell skill. His manipulation is also limited by his Power + Available Presence. Instant and Active spells are limited by the minimum of a skill limit and the magic points held by the sorceror's POW and PRE: Skill Limit: [Note that this is with RQ III Intensity and we toned down certain spells such as Neutralize Magic and Damage Boost that were out of balance with the others.] Skill limit on total manipulation = Spell % / 5 (Special Chance) + Related Skill DIV 25* Skill limit on individual manipulation (Range, etc.) = Skill / 5% Power limit on total manipulation = Sorceror's MP's + MP's held in PRE. Of course the sorceror must also have enough MP's available to cast the spell. Further spells can be added but additional castings require a Concentration roll. Of course a sorceror with Multispell could cast and maintain several active spells at once, e.g. Illusions. * Related Skill Bonus: [ This could be eliminated if it is too complicated.] We use a bonus for appropriate Lore or other skills: Best Appropritate Skill DIV 25. (i.e 01-24% = no bonus, 25 - 49 = +1, etc.) Appropriate skill for a spell would be included in the spell description. This is not too complicated (we think) and reflects that with a better abstract understanding of what you're manipulating you can craft a better spell. Examples of Appropriate Skills: Elemental Spells use Elemental Speech (Storm Speech, etc.) Beast Spells use Animal Lore, etc. Illusion spells could use Sleight. Maintained Magic (Using Presence) When casting a long duration spell the situation is different. The skill limits are the same but the power limit is just the magic points held in the sorceror's PRE. When he casts the spell he must dedicate one point of PRE to maintaining the spell, making it unavailable for other purposes (such as holding magic points) as long as the spell is maintained. Example: Let's say we have a sorceror with POW 10, PRE 6 and 60% in his Intensity and favorite spells. When casting an Instant or Active spell he is limited by his skill to a manipulation of 12. If his personal MPs + PRE MPs is less than 12 then this is his limit. Now he wants to cast some long duration spells. At first none of his Presence dedicated to any spells. Then the first spell he casts with Presence can have six points of Intensity. He must dedicate 1 point of PRE to maintaining that spell. Now he has 5 points left, and if he has the magic points he can start up another spell with 5 points of intensity. Thus he can maintain a total of 6 spells, with his best spell at 6, his second at 5, and so on down to 1. Note that if he is maintaining all 6 long duration spells then his maximum for Instant and Active spells will be his own magic points. If the sorceror in this example a Dormali at sea he might want to maintain Skin of Life on himself and the captain. This would use up two of his "always-on" spells and cut into his abilities. Or he might decide that it's more important to be able to throw better spells and only put up Skin of Life if needed. Were the sorceror in this example to build up his Presence to more than 12 without gaining more skill then the best long duration spells would be limited by skill rather than Presence. Thus a magician has a strategic decision to make. His best spells will be those cast first. If he is maintaining spells his magical strength goes down. This aspect of the system was a lot of fun in playtest. ************************************************8 The main advantages of this system as I see it: Sorcerors get to make a strategic decision as to whether they should let their magic be 'out' in running spells or kept in a reserve. An example would be afforded by Sauron vs. Gandalf in _The Lord of the Rings_. Sauron has most of his magic 'out' in running spells while Gandalf has few running spells but instead keeps a strategic reserve. The system has a lot less bookkeeping than RQ III. Instead of tracking the duration of dozens of spells you know the size of your Presence and apportion it accordingly. For Active spells you maintain a spell as long as you need it, feeding it extra magic points as necessary. Melee rounds never get counted, you just look at whether or not a spell is being maintained. The main (IMO) important variable of how many spells you can keep running concurrently is transparent in our system. This was a (very important) hidden variable in the RQ III system. [ In your system there would be very few of these long duration spells anyway, so yours also has less paperwork.] We playtested this type of system in a Pendragon campaign, with a weak magician as one of the PCs, and a few medium NPC magicians. (No really strong magicians in this post-Merlin era.) The player enjoyed the feel of marshalling his magical resources in the same way that one might marshal an army, making the decision of whether to commit his magic "in the field" or keep a reserve instead. We haven't tested it extensively yet in a specifically Gloranthan setting but the Western culture seemed similar enough to the Pendragon milieu that I got a feel for the social consequences of such a system in a feudal society. It worked well for the court magicians, who jealously hoarded their powers or enhanced the King and his champions, and for the PC, who alternated between small enhancements on his knightly friends and himself or "gathering" all his magic if they thought they might face a real magical foe. In this campaign we used a system where {One point of Presence = One point of Intensity} instead of the 5-4-3-2-1 system described above. This might also be the way to go if we were to use Presence in your system. I've gone through several iteration of the actual mechanics, with my feeling being that a power level like that of your system was appropriate. This seemed so far removed from the RQ III system that I was trying to compromise on the power level but am now recalibrating in line with the RQ IV draft. In our system sorcerors have time for ecclesiastical duties, politics and plotting, research and training, etc. Power in our system goes into the personal development of the sorceror, not into making a bunch of gadgets. (Or one-use spells) I feel that Glorantha really seems to be a world where excellence lies more within individual than in the collection of gadgets that an institution can come up with. In the current system the best thing for sorcerors to do with Power is to enchant a big matrix, which should get handed on to their descendants, potentially a balance problems against the other two systems (where Power goes into Rune Magic or Fetches rather than all into Enchantments.) I think that it is better to have magic based on the person rather than a tool, in the latter case we are getting back to the situation in our world. People are also reluctant to throw permanent power into one-time effects. I've seen this in my campaigns. If I were running a sorceror in this system I would definitely build one big matrix and then it would be worthwhile spending POW to throw long duration spells. This is a winning strategy because duration is still exponential. In my system one big matrix is less of a win and sorcerors will try to build up their Presence instead. In a social context, the one-big-matrix approach has a strong drawback: court sorcerors and schools should have 15-point matrices lying around. Temples certainly do have big enchantments in published RQ material, cathedrals should be the same. With one of these matrices available it's now worthwhile to use POW to cast powerful long duration spells, and they start to accumulate again. I prefer my system where the limit is on the number of spells running rather than duration. Oh, and I think that people enjoy the feeling that their characters are undergoing a sort of steady personal development. And in our experience people would rather have weak magic that they can reapportion as needed than commit everything to one big spell. Also, in our system sorcerors seem to be using the same underlying laws of nature as shamans and cultists. To me, this makes Glorantha seem more like a unified world rather than a couple of different worlds stuck together. However, it now appears that the latter is more in line with Greg's current views. Anyway, that's the basic idea. I have skill (Recall Presence, Self-Discipline) and spell descriptions written up and there was also a substantial Runic component where sorcerors could dedicate portions of their Presence to different Runes. Each Spell had two or three Runes and you could only use dedicated Presence on a spell with that Rune. This was based on comments such as: "Western Wizards and sorcerors love to use the standard Gloranthan Runes." - p. 21, Player's Book: Genertela, authors Greg Stafford & Sandy Petersen. I've deleted the Runic component of this system in this description since I've heard that Greg is now (perplexingly) of the opinion that Western magic is not Runic. However, I'm writing it up a variant for FREE INT, das RuneQuest-Magazin. . - Paul ps. As I said this is just a rough outline of the system and if you want polished prose or more details feel free to ask. I have to get back to the physics mines so I shouldn't really take the time to edit it into a better form (unless it looks like parts of it might get accepted.)  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA19631; Wed, 9 Jun 93 11:22:03 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA21978; Wed, 9 Jun 93 12:22:02 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 9 Jun 93 12:22:06 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: SORCERY. Date: Wed, 9 Jun 93 12:21:52 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <11B3CD3366D@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Paul Reilly again. This message _should_ follow a long post about sorcery. If you get this one first, it will only make sense when you get the long post. In light of Oliver's response when I sent the system to him, let me try to clarify a point that perhaps was not well developed in the description. Long lasting spells have no fixed Duration, instead they are maintained by a Sorceror's Presence until he Recalls that Presence. Thus the sorceror has a certain amount of magic, which he can have "out in the field" in long duration spells, or can "keep in reserve" as Presence. Recall Presence is a new magic skill. One still must spend Magic Points to cast the spells, thus there is a cost associated with switching one's magic. We have changed the details of the system a number of times and have not settled on a definitive system. We were torn on the issue of how to balance the system: against RQ III Sorcery (ugh!) or against the other two systems, i.e., shamanism and divine magic. We have tried to choose the latter. After some email from Oliver I want to make a few changes in the system, some of his ideas are clear improvements. - Paul PS: concerning not recovering MP's for spells that are still on. (Joerg) We tried another variant that was a bit of fun: spells act as MP parasites, they need their intensity/day in MP's to function. They draw this from the person the spell is on or from the casting sorceror. Typically this comes from the MP recovery rate of a willing subject. Thus the warrior with a 3 enhancement to strength and dexterity and 2 points of Spell Resistance will have 8 points cut from his daily MP recovery rate. This limits the amount of magic on a person (to his POW) and also accounts for the hostility of shamans (who see the spells as little spirit parasites) and priests (who think that MPs should be used for worship if possible) to sorcery, and why people from other cultures don't even want it cast on them. This system preserves the basic feel of RQ III Sorcery while imposing some limits and a cost to the person using it, and discourages spirit magic users from getting sorcery cast on them as well. (If your MP recovery rate is cut to 2 points a day, you don't really want to cast Heal 6 and Bladesharp 4).  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA20719; Wed, 9 Jun 93 11:44:41 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA23580; Wed, 9 Jun 93 12:44:37 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 9 Jun 93 12:44:44 EDT From: curtiss@netcom.com (Curtis Shenton) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: MAGIC Date: Wed, 9 Jun 93 9:44:44 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <11B9D382D4E@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> I don't know if this has been discussed to death before so please bear with me. My question is, do we have to keep spirit magic the way it is? To me it's always seemed a discordany note in the magic systems. While I was never impressed with Sorcery when 3rd edition came out it never really irritated me, and divine magic works well enough(and I can't see a much better way to do it). But spirit magic bothers me. I've never liked the idea that someone who knows protection 4 and bladesharp 4 would think along the lines of, "Well I only want to spend 4 MP for this combat. The people we'll be fighting don't have much armor so I'll go with Protection 3 and Bladesharp 1" It sounds too much like "I'll put 3 charges into my forcefield and 1 charge into my weapon" What I'd like is something like Bladesong a spell you learn like a normal skill, you can get +5% for each round spent chanting/singing up to +50% and when you roll for each 10% you make it by you can the equivalent of 1 level of bladesharp. This way a warrior would have a reason to spend lots of time reciting a charm over his sword rather than a quick muttered prayer to cast Protection 3 and another one for Bladesharp 1. You never know how well the spirits will respond but the better/longer the prayer the better the magic you'll get. Spirit magic as it stands now is 1)Vey mechanical and 2) works too reliably. If this topic has been beaten to death please feel free to ignore me. :) -- Curtis Shenton curtiss@netcom.com internet 4@3091 WWIVnet Currently working on something, I'm not sure what, for WotC  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA25749; Wed, 9 Jun 93 13:53:37 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AB01088; Wed, 9 Jun 93 14:53:26 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 9 Jun 93 14:53:34 EDT From: burt@ptltd.com (Burton Choinski) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: COMMENTS -- general replies on Sorcery, Shields and Subjects Date: Wed, 9 Jun 93 14:49:53 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <11DC3592147@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Roderick Robertson (on shields) ------------------------------------------------------------ | Armor Points/Encumbrance/Cost | Material Small Medium Large | | Leather (1 Ply) 3/0.5/1 4/1.0/3 5/1.5/5 | Wicker 5/1.0/5 7/2.0/10 9/3.0/20 | Wood 8/1.5/25 10/3.0/50 13/4.5/75 | Wood/Leather 12/2.0/50 14/4.0/75 16/6.0/100 (standard) | Reinf. W/L 15/2.5/60 17/4.5/90 20/6.5/125 | Bronze 15/2.0/110 17/4.0/140 20/7.0/150 Shouldn't this be 6.0, to continue the pattern? ^^^ | With such a system, more Cultural differences could be introduced | (Sartar Orlanthi use Wood, Wood/Leather, or Reinforced Wood/Leather; | Sun Domers use Reinforced Wood/Leather or Bronze; Ducks use Wicker or | Leather; etc.). I like it, though. :) Iron would be equal to Bronze, unless enchanted where it gets x1.5 the listed AP. Is there any value in getting small shields? I mean, once players get the cash, they will just upgrade to large ones unless there is some disadvantage to having them. | Since I have only been receiving the list since last night, forgive | me if this is an old question, but could you elaborate on why there is | (was?) no Catch skill? Someone (Loren?) mentioned that they had | included Throw/catch as a single skill on a Character sheet. To me, |the two are not in the least the same (else a Reciever could be a | Quarterback...) I think Throw and Catch should be part of the same skill, much like I feel that punch, kick and headbutt should be rolled into "Brawling" and Grapple, Hold, Escape rolled into "Wrestling". Loren J. Miller suggests: ------------------------------------------------------------ | Before the volume of this list becomes unmanageable, I want to propose a | protocol for people to use. Please use consistent subject lines, with | keyword information, to identify the topic of your post. Subject lines | like the following are helpful because they immediately identify the | basic topic of your post. | | ADMIN: The benefits of digestified mailing lists | SKILLS: Redundant skills, Cut it out! | SKILLS: Redundant skills, Keep them! | SORCERY: RQ3 compatible or not? A general good idea, I suppose. I like lots of traffic, but others might not. What about general messages where you reply on several subjects in one swoop (like this message)? | This is a list of likely subject line keywords. Well, I don't know if a "cast in stone" list is needed. Just choose a good, 1 or 2 word tag for your subject (in upper case) that fits. | You are the owners of this list, and I want it to work for your sake as | well as my own. But I want you all to know that if it gets too chatty | and inane I'm fully capable of pulling the plug on it, forcing us to | once again use the digest for this discussion. I hope not. Like I have stated, I like the volume/turnaround of the list for this stuff. But I'll try to do more "combined messages" like this one. Paul Reilly and his Sorcery stuff: ------------------------------------------------------------ | Here's a short description of our system, slightly changed from the | version I sent to Oliver Jovanovic. It seems apropos to post it in the | light of the current discussion. I lack the time to polish it | so it may be rough in spots. Let me know what you think. I'm not too fond of adding another attribute, PRE. But then, I was not happy with Steve M.'s WIL in his heroquest rules. I personally find the "parasite spell" idea a much better idea. Serfs, Knights and Lords (and apprentices) pay the magic cost of the spell each hour. Sorcerers are those who have mastered the Infinity rune, and pay once per day. This only applies to temporal spells, of course. So, Joe peasant could cast the "Plowing Song", and basically has enough mana to last a day. If it were really tough soil, he might need a 2 intensity casting, which would drain him in 5 hours, wasting the rest of the day. But there might be a Serf-combine object that hold mana that he can hold while he plows, draining it as well. His children can then pray to the Invisible god after the days work to refill it for the next day. Such "Aid" objects, may be loaned to the serfs by their lords, or rented out at a fee. Perhaps the use of such objects require 1 extra MP (which goes to the Invisible god as "his due" or is rationalized as energy loss/inefficiency by us pagan science types :) per POW of enchantment. -- Burton  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA27594; Wed, 9 Jun 93 14:29:57 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA03609; Wed, 9 Jun 93 15:29:55 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 9 Jun 93 15:29:58 EDT From: curtiss@netcom.com (Curtis Shenton) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: SORCERY. Date: Wed, 9 Jun 93 12:30:21 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <11E5F873097@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> > > > > SORCERY NOTES (C) Paul Reilly and Mike Holliday 1993 > > Here's a short description of our system, slightly changed from the > version I sent to Oliver Jovanovic. It seems apropos to post it in the > light of the current discussion. I lack the time to polish it > so it may be rough in spots. Let me know what you think. > Overall I have to say I really like it. Somehow sorcers seem like they would "feel" right using this system. I'm pretty sure the basic premise is sound. And other details can be polished later. That's what playtesting is for after all. :) > > We've experimented with several ideas about how sorcery > could work. Our method has been to first look at how we want magicians > to function in the society and then to reverse engineer from there. > We also like the idea that there are laws of nature in Glorantha and > that the different magic systems (Divine, Spirit, Sorcery) have some > underlying similarities that reflect these laws. I really like this idea. One problem I think all three magic systems in RQ have is that their are really countless magic systems in Glorantha. And there is really no way to fix this. Writing up a seperate magic system just for Godunya worshippers doesn't make sense. So the next best thing is to base it off of sorcery. But by emphasing the ways the three magic systems are similar I think later variations(like Godunya or even Lunar magic) will be easier to develop. The similarities will hopefully help people customize later magic systems for different parts of a Glorantha campaign. After all I don't think Mostali magic should be _exactly like Malkioni sorcery, just very similar. > > We also saw that the description of Western people and culture was > not in agreement with the sorcery system. We tried to take the > descriptions as canonical when building a new system. Apparently this was > misleading, for example on the question of Runic Sorcery: > Basically sorcerors could dedicate themselves to a small number of Runes, > increasing say their fire powers at the cost of their magic in general. Sounds good to me. > > [very interesting background on what the Shaman's and Sorceror's worldviews are deleted] I really like the parellel here. It always seemed to me that if the shaman could develop part of himself into a fetch other cultures and worldviews would be able to do soemthing similar. In fact given the nature of Glorantha I'd be shocked if no one else developed something like this. I also like the conecpt of Presense. I once tried to develop something along the same lines myself( I was using lounar magic for sorcery and just ignoring the RQIII sorcery system) and was basing the was basically a substitute familiar and the wizard was really at a only fixes many problems with the current sorcery system it will be a more interesting system to characters in. The mindset of sorcerors under the presence system will be more in line with what I think of when I think of a wizard. > ************************************************8 > The main advantages of this system as I see it: > > Sorcerors get to make a strategic > decision as to whether they should let their magic be 'out' in running > spells or kept in a reserve. An example would be afforded by Sauron vs. > Gandalf in _The Lord of the Rings_. Sauron has most of his magic 'out' > in running spells while Gandalf has few running spells but instead keeps > a strategic reserve. I think this will be quite an interesting addition to Glorantha. Wizards will have lots of options for making developing their own unique style and tactics without making them all powerfull. > > Anyway, that's the basic idea. I have skill (Recall Presence, Self-Discipline) > and spell descriptions written up and there was also a substantial Runic > component where sorcerors could dedicate portions of their Presence to different > Runes. Each Spell had two or three Runes and you could only use dedicated > Presence on a spell with that Rune. This was based on comments such as: > > > "Western Wizards and sorcerors love to use the standard Gloranthan Runes." > - p. 21, Player's Book: Genertela, authors Greg Stafford & Sandy Petersen. > > I've deleted the Runic component of this system in this description > since I've heard that Greg is now (perplexingly) of the opinion that > Western magic is not Runic. However, I'm writing it up a variant for > FREE INT, das RuneQuest-Magazin. That's too bad. I've always liked the runic ties of the Western Wizards. Any chance you'll post this sytem to the regular RQ digest? > . > > - Paul -- Curtis Shenton curtiss@netcom.com internet 4@3091 WWIVnet Currently working on something, I'm not sure what, for WotC  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA28577; Wed, 9 Jun 93 14:54:22 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA05144; Wed, 9 Jun 93 15:54:13 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 9 Jun 93 15:54:23 EDT From: mabeyke@batman.b11.ingr.com (boris) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: MAGIC Date: Wed, 9 Jun 93 14:56:20 CDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <11EC63E6441@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> vvvvvvvvvvvvvv Curtis Shenton: > I don't know if this has been discussed to death before so please bear > with me. My question is, do we have to keep spirit magic the way it is? < much deleted> > Spirit magic as it stands now is 1)Vey mechanical and 2) works too > reliably. If this topic has been beaten to death please feel free to > ignore me. :) Not beaten to death here, but I posted thoughts much to the same effect to the RQ Daily last week (in response to comments by you and Paul Snow; I guess *we're* all in agreement, anyway). Did you see Nick Brooke's excellent reply (which I threatened to post here anyway)? If so, skip down past the *****, but I'll repeat it here for those who missed it. ********************************************************* Nick Brooke wrote: > Boris Mikey: > > Magic, even in a magic rich world such as Glorantha, > > should be mysterious and uncertain. > > Agree with the sentiment and the approach. This looks like a good moment > to chuck in my ha'penn'orth (mechanics, I'm afraid). Something we tested > last Sunday was a Spirit Magic casting die-roll of 1D20 against POW (rather > than the old POWx5 +- Magic Bonus - ENC on 1D100). Similar to some > Pendragon mechanics. My original idea was this: > > Success (roll < POW) meant you could cast up to the number of points of > spell you had rolled on the die. So if you wanted to cast Bladesharp 6 but > rolled a "2", you could only put up two points. If you were trying for a > hefty fixed-cost spell (Lightwall at four points), you'd need to roll > between 4 and your POW to succeed. > > Critical success (roll = POW) meant you could cast as many points of the > spell as you owned, for one Magic Point only. > > Failure (roll > POW) was no trouble. > > Fumble (roll = 20) meant you wasted a Magic Point. > > This could be trimmed to fit your own conceptions: Failure might cost 1 MP > and Fumble the full number you were meaning to cast, if you like penalising > people for screwing up. > > Chuck in the new Magic skill of "Focus" (gives +1 to effective POW per 5% > of skill for the purposes of spirit spell casting only), and you can tell > the professional spirit magicians from the amateurs. Get a high enough > skill at Focussing, and you can cruise through magical engagements under > your own Power (all those critical rolls). ********************************************************* Now, for those who don't want to give up their 1d00 rolls, the following is mostly equivalent. Instead of a straight POWx5% or less roll, roll (POW - magic points in spell) x5% + Focusing skill If it's a variable spell, rolling over this will get a smaller version of the spell. If you don't like a focus spell (or even if you do) you could include your idea of taking extra time, but that's already covered by the ceremony rules (albeit in a bloodless manner, but a good GM and hopefully RQ4 will give lots of examples of the types of ceremonies done). For those who want even more unpredictable magic, Nick also gave the idea of adding the total points of spells you have running to the points of spell you are casting. To adapt it to 1d100, you would roll (POW - MPs in spell - MPs in spells running) x5% + Focusing skill If you roll between this and the previous figure, then you can cast a the spell, but only if you drop some of your running magic. BTW, I'd like to chime in now and express my hope that, whatever form Spirit Magic takes in RQ4, they will drop the silly POWx5% on 1d100 and just roll POW on a d20. Functionally identical, and simpler. And it's not as the game doesn't use d20's already. vvvvvvvvvvv Paul Reilly: Loved your sorcery system. I'd recommend using the rule of one point of PRE per point intensity of spell maintained. Though the other would be more useful to beginning sorceror characters. A hybrid approach would rule would be to require at least one PRE to maintain each long duration spell, but that any such spell can be dispelled as if it's intensity were one. More PRE can be used to back it, up to it's intensity, to increase the power require to dispel it. -- (*) ZZ [] (.) @ e K| o8- |> oK <>< )o 3 8 <| It's an ill wind that was healed by Chalana Arroy. Lightbringer saying. Boris |><| +- (| >- .: K * =|= <- (O) ( ) (o) (|) X-  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA03533; Wed, 9 Jun 93 17:03:04 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA12056; Wed, 9 Jun 93 18:02:57 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 9 Jun 93 18:03:02 EDT From: burt@ptltd.com (Burton Choinski) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: RULES -- comments on 2.0 draft Date: Wed, 9 Jun 93 17:59:15 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <120EC535658@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Well, after Nick's chewing up of the 2.0 draft, I might as well go into mine. I made some comments on the regular list, which may get cursory note, but I will try to stick to new items. ===============================================================================RQIV PLAYERS BOOK CHARACTERISTICS: Why not tweak a little towards realism and have slight differences in attributes for male/female humans as well? It's done for the other races. Now, the differences might not be much. Probably +1 to SIZ and STR for male, +1 to CON and perhaps DEX for female. Not much, but better reflects things I think. DAMAGE MODIFIER: I agree with Nick -- replace the extra die with a simple +/- bonus to the base weapon damage. Nick had a table that looked good to me. PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE: As I noted (and someone else as well), chuck the fractions. Multiply all values by 4. 1 BP now equals 25 hours of training (1/2 week). I wonder, seriously, how many games will start off with novice level. I run my starting players at Expert, since they want to get right into the thick of things without being overclassed most of the time. If it is decided to go to smaller, but more well defined occupation packs (Soldier, Sergeant, Night Watchman, Honor Guard, etc), perhaps a leaner way is to assign each class a specific number of "Pack points", each of which is used to enter a career (perhaps some real hairy occupations require 2 instead of 1), and a set of "general points" which are used to get the extras now handled by BP. CHARACTER GENERATION: I agree with Nick -- Yank the rolled culture/career stuff. That or place it all in a "Book O' Tables" pamphlet will all this random, but sometimes useful stuff in it. MAGICAL BACKGROUND: Should not be chosen as a parallel effort, but be a reward or result of the proper career choice. At present it's kinda Bass-ackwards, where you choose divine magic background, then must take Initiate to justify it. BECOMING AN INITIATE: Folded in, just like the other careers. But is usually the first or second pack taken, if you become an initiate at such early ages. OPTIONAL SKILLS AND TRAINING: It's background, it's abstract anyways. Just present a list of skills, likely source of training (Criminal, Military, Civilian, Mercantile, etc) and cost in points. Spend points as desired to up levels in those skills. Perhaps some skills cost more for really opposite backgrounds (i.e. street thug skills for high-born nobles). So the process is: spend Profession slots, use your extra points to round out the rough edges from the careers. An optional conversion from Occupation slots to Extra points (and vice versa) should be provided, but limited to 10% of either (to prevent total conversion to Extra points and buying skills as they will). BUYING OPTIONAL SKILLS WITHIN ONE'S PROFESSION: With the above system, upping a skill provided by the occupation slot using extra points may get a reduced price, perhaps 25% to 50% off. CHARACTERISTIC INCREASES Handled with extra points, to round off the character. Existing means looks okay. PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE TABLES As above, yank out the "offline" random tables (i.e. those not needed when running the game but useful before or after the session) and put them in an extra pamphlet. CULTURAL EQUIPMENT This section should probably be included in the section of the RQ4 book that deals with gear, perhaps broken as listed into "bundles". Keep gear with equipment, and the skills descriptions WAY in front with the character generation and career lists. PROFESSIONS Like I noted before, I think I'm favoring narrower but more numerous occupation packs. As an example, Crafter might be split into the following: Craft Apprentice (x2) entry: any basic: Primary Craft 45, Secondary Craft 30, Craft Custom 45 other: +15 to any 5 of the following: (list of skills that Joe Apprentice could get, not including the above 3) Craft Senior Apprentice entry: Craft Apprentice basic: none other: +15 to any 5 of the following: (list of skills that Fred senior App. could learn or increase in) Craft Journeyman entry: Craft Senior Apprentice etc... Craft Master entry: Craft Journeyman (POWx3 roll) etc... The POW roll simulates that you might have to wait for an opening before you can get the rank of master. The Apprentice slot costs double since it includes a host of baseline skills that you need to be trained in. You get the skills listed in "Basic" up to that level...if you are already better then that you get no improvement (you already know more then what they are teaching you). The other training is added to existing skills, or to learn new skills. only those listed may be affected. There might be some other Craft subgroups that I have not listed. Subgroups could easily fit within the subgroups already presented for some occupations. The above career system is kinda influenced by that used by 2300ad. BASIC CULTURAL SKILLS This would be part of a "Youth slot". Street Ruffian, country kid, noble child, etc. You get one "childhood pack" to fit your culture, and this should limit what careers you can go into (i.e. Low Noble may require: "Noble Child", "Foot Soldier and POWx1 roll", "Sergeant and POWx1 roll", "Low Officer and POWx2", "High Officer and POWx3", etc. So, you can be born into it, or get a title through career actions. SKILL VERSUS SKILL Needing yet another roll if both get the same level of success is too clunky. Looking at the difference probably works as well, but I wonder how just using the "High Roller" would work: Example: Arman tries to sneak (skill 56%) past a guard (Scan 45%). Arman rolls a 22, the guard a 34. Both are simple successes, but the guard has "the high roll" and the slight advantage, and spots Arman. Now, while on a "difference from value required" basis, Arman has the better roll. But when it comes to speed, one can just look at the rolled values without needing to figure out math stuff. Hell, you don't even need to tell the players what the guard has as a skill. "You both succeed, but it looks like he has high-roll...you lose, sucker!" :) When listing a target to overcome (like a lock, for instance), the maker's Roll is pre-figured and noted: "The lock on this door is Rated at Succ/23" Thus, the guy picking the lock needs to get a special or better, or succeed with a roll over 23. INCREASING SKILLS BY EXPERIENCE I think Very Hard skills should increase by 1d3-1, not just 1. Like Nick said, toss the fixed gain (my players haven't used it, and they don't seem to mind. However, I have not told them that they can take a fixed amount...:) SKILL TRAINING AND RESEARCH >>The length of time for one training or research session is a >>number of hours equal to the current skill percentage. Yuck. I hated this. I get nit-picky about "Well, I have 50 hours, so I'll train my 15% skill, my 20% skill and my 13% skill". Too fine a resolution. I'm going to try the following: 0-25% = 1/2 week 26-50% = 1 week 51-75% = 1-1/2 week 76-100% = 2 weeks etc. Lot easier to break it up. Prevents the "while we are here for a few days I trin in this skill...what's that, 16 hours? Just enough" stuff I had BEFORE I went to a "5 training points per week, Skills need 1 point per 10% of skill" way, which works pretty good as well. But I'm gonna try the 25% threshold way in the next game, see how it looks. >>For a training session to succeed, the teacher must succeed in an >>Instruct roll. I think it should be standardized as Instruct + 1/5 the skill being taught. This works for bargain, might as well make it a system-wide mechanic and keep things standard. It should be noted that the teacher MUST be better skilled then the student. I'm not sure if this note is in there. >>With the GM's permission, players may use the previous experience >>tables to give an estimate of training gains. Each background point >>roughly equals 100 hours of training time. This gives players >>and GMs a quick way to handle long periods of training or >>research. It is especially helpful for NPCs. Axe this. Background generation is an abstraction used to get a handle on 16-30 years of non-played time. It has no place once the character is "up to date". HUMANOID HIT POINTS PER LOCATION TABLE Should be up with the rest of character generation, not so far down. RESULTS OF DAMAGE Should be down with the rest of the combat stuff. SKILLS Comments on the skills, as previously promised (threatened? :) In general, the split/merge strangeness is kind of hard to fully take in. I think names should be "primitivized" in some cases. Acrobatics a wide-ranging skill that tries to do it all. I suggest limiting it to general leaping and rolling, with Breakfall included. Narrow the definition. Bargain Rename to "Haggle", perhaps? Battle I think this skill is unneeded. This function can be provided just as well by abstracting to (Primary Attack) + (Primary Defense) + (Scout ) divided by 3. Beg I see three types of common speaking: Orate, Debate, and Fast Talk. The first is where you try to persuade by overcoming the emotions of the target, the second where you try to overcome the knowledge of the target, the third where you try to overcome the intelligence of the target (in trying to confuse or obsucate). Begging is an act that uses Orate (a more generic term is needed) combined with Street Custom. I fail to see the need for this skill on it's own. Breakfall Roll it into Acrobatics. Courtesan Perhaps this should be renamed to seduction. May be used as an add with certain interactive skills at 1/5th level. Thus, one may up one's Persuasion of a noble using orate, using a bit of sex appeal to up the ante. (should be decided by the referee if this is allowed in this case). Craft I think of "Craft" as "Work this substance to alter it's form". Craft gold, Craft wood, Craft stone, etc. "Craft Butchery" sounds real clunky, even though it technically is a "reduction of form" rather then an "enhancement of form" like the others. Don't list "Brew Venom" as one of the options -- it just tempts players to go for it. Reserve it for specific occupation slots or cults. Dance Why per culture? Why not just say you may always add 1/5th your Custom to this skill when dancing for members of that culture. Dance is Dance is dance...the variations are cultural. Devise I like it as listed in RQ3 book 1 -- a skill in assembling and disassembling devices and traps. Disarm Traps Pitch it. Have a Trap Lore which you use to figure out the device, then use devise to disarm. Alternately, Use Devise +1/5 Trap Lore to disarm and Devise +1/5 Trap Lore to set. Escape Roll this into a "Wrestling Defense" skill. Intrigue Better to make this another Custom (Court Custom) Lip Read Note that the lower of this skill or the language skill required is used. Maneuver I personally like this skill. Martial Arts I feel that, to maintain the dangerous feel of a martial artist, that this skill is best used as an add to the proper skill. The style is decided when you learn the skill, and this style affects one area. Areas include "Holds" "Strikes" and "Weapons". The area covered adds the MA skill to the base skill. Areas not covered may add 1/5th the MA skill. For example, Kwanjoe the fast has Martial Arts (Holds) 55%. His Wrestling Attack skill is 70% and his Wrestling Defense skill is 60%. When grappling someone, he has an effective skill of 55+70, or 125% when considering specials, criticals, etc. When using his Katana with his 2H-Sword skill of 65%, he has an effective skill of 65+11, or 76%. He must learn Martial arts in another style to get the "full add" in that style. Fully trained MA masters are rare, and very dangerous. Martial Hold Martial Throw No longer needed if the above MA tweak is used. Memorize Chuck it. Use INTx5 if you need this. Mimic I would say this is a varient of Act. Is there really a need? Pick Locks Now folds under Devise, with Lock Lore. Read/Write [Lang] I like the comment by someone about making this "Script" Run I think this should have at least 40% base for us monkey boys, like climb has. Ducks have better swimming then we have running. Sail I think Boat can cover this well enough. Set Traps Fold into device, with Trap Lore. Torture This is probably better as a knowledge of how to break someone, rather then a fine steady hand at it. Treat Disease Treat Poison Combine under the skill of "Healer" or something. SKILL DECAY Who cares. This is DEFINITELY more bother then the worth gained. >> Example: A character with 90% Broadsword Attack and Parry is unable to >> practice the skill for 90 minutes in a month's time, due to a serious >> illness. His Braodsword Attack and Parry drop to 89%. You expect me to worry about 90 minutes per MONTH times god knows how many skills? Get real. If this has to be in the rules, put it in a grey-shaded optional box or sidebar or something. -- Burton  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA03573; Wed, 9 Jun 93 17:05:07 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA12170; Wed, 9 Jun 93 18:05:03 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 9 Jun 93 18:05:04 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: SORCERY. Date: Wed, 9 Jun 93 18:04:58 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <120F4D91976@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Paul R. here. Curtis writes a lot of nice comments about my post and ask: >That's too bad. I've always liked the runic ties of the Western Wizards. >Any chance you'll post this sytem to the regular RQ digest? I will try to polish it up a bit this weekend and drop it off at the list. I have a number of things to work on, but since (at least a few) people have commented favorably on this I'll add it to the list. Don't want to overload it with too much Sorcery at once, though...  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA04612; Wed, 9 Jun 93 17:44:49 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA14473; Wed, 9 Jun 93 18:44:43 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 9 Jun 93 18:44:49 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: SPIRIT MAGIC Date: Wed, 9 Jun 93 18:44:51 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <1219E8A7E8C@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Spirit Magic: A couple of variants we have played with: 1. Range = POW x 5 meters instead of 50. No more staying 51 meters away while shooting with a bow! The RQ4 draft also has this mod, I bet half the people on this list have made it also. In all cases we adopt this rule. The rest of these are options, not necessarily intended to be used together: 2. Go back to RQ3 for Focussed on self, Unfocussed on others. Add in things like "Unfocussed on weapon in hand" for Bladesharp. Now invent a Focussing skill to cast magic. This is a standard Magic skill and can improve through experience. This works great in low-magic campaigns. Interpret things like Fanaticism as just willing yourself to fight fanatically: spend a point of willpower (MP) and hack away! Strength is berserk strength, Coordination is paying extra attention (at the cost of willpower = MP) to what you're doing, etc. Spells like Bladesharp can be interpreted as "extra effort": you can only do it for a while and then you get mentally tired - fighting really does work like this! (Spending mental effort for peak ability in the most important fight of the day.) ___________ 3. When RQ3 first added spell spirits we thought they were a dopey mechanic. After reading THE WAY OF THE SHAMAN and some other such books, I don't think they went far enough. Primitive peoples pick up "helper spirits" all the time. So another model is instead of saying "I beat up the spirit and force it to teach me its spell that it can't even cast itself," say instead: "I acquire a new spirit buddy who'll do his trick for me." Thus you get a Bladesharp spirit - it doesn't cast a spell, it IS the spell. It can sit on a sword and help it fight. You have to feed it some mana, of course, or it won't do it's trick. You can acquire several spirits of the same type. If you acquire spirits of opposing types (Fireblade and Darkwall) you may have to break up catfights once in a while and one or both of them may run off and sulk. The shaman makes you a little house for the spirit (Focus, like an oppossum rib cage) or you find it on a visionquest. I'd probably use this model in a Hsunchen campaign, it fits much better with an animistic view of the world. 4. Another model is to say that you don't cast spells: instead you've learned to talk to a certain type of spirit. In this case your culture says practically everything has a spirit. If you've learned how to talk to sword spirits you can bribe your sword (with mana) to fight a bit harder for you (Bladesharp). You could also figure out how to bribe an enemy's sword into not trying very hard when he hits you. (Dullblade). You could use the same old mechanics for spells but change the interpretation, and the whole concept of learning spells might change. Thus someone who learned how to talk to Fire spirits could logically learn how to wake them up (Ignite) or lull them back to sleep (Extinguish). These spells, considered 'opposite' in many cultures, would go together in the animistic culture I've outlined. 5. This applies to shamans only. Shamans may release a spirit held by their fetch to perform a single task, but what are the time limits? Also, how is a mindless spirit (Law, disease, elemental, etc.) supposed to be able to know to keep its deal with the shaman? We play that the fetch must divert part of its attention to supervising the spirit, setting aside one magic point (or one magic point per ten points of the spirit's POW) for that purpose. Thus the fetch doesn't recover the magic point until the task is done. This puts a nice limit on how long a task the shaman may demand, but allows the shaman to give an offensive spirit an order like "Go into the Wastes and approach not the habitations of men" to permanently get rid of it if he is willing to effectively sacrifice a point of POW to do so. Also, when combined with rule #3 above this can let the shaman make a medicine bundle, good for one spell. The shaman, using his Enchant skill, makes a medicine bundle (costing MP but no POW) that the spirit can recognize and follow. (Without Second Sight it needs something special as a marker.) The shaman pays off the spell spirit in advance (maybe with double the usual MPs) and its task is to stay with the medicine bundle until a condition is met, e.g. the bundle is thrown at someone. Then the spirit does its thing, and goes free. Note the shamans' fetch doesn't get it's MP back until the bundle is used, thus the shaman can only make a limited number and every one that he has 'out' reduces his fetch's possible MP by one. Oh, you could also make these for healing spirits,etc. These make a good GM tool if you want the PC's to have a spirit spell or spirit for one use without giving it to them permanently. _____________________ I may send this to the RQ Daily as well, now that I've written it. But first I'll give y'all a chance to stop me by telling me that it's a waste of bandwidth!  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA04968; Wed, 9 Jun 93 17:54:37 -0500 Return-Path: <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA14882; Wed, 9 Jun 93 18:54:33 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 9 Jun 93 18:54:36 EDT From: Nick Brooke <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: SORCERY: Paul Reilly's system Date: 09 Jun 93 18:45:57 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <121C81A51EB@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> I'll comment on the ideas in Paul Reilly's proposed Sorcery rules system first; I'll test the mechanics before responding on those. I am *delighted* by Paul's suggestion that Wizards create an "artificial Fetch" made up of suppressed desires, self-denial and the like. It opens up a new moral dimension in the sorcery system, as we now have the groundwork for a mechanism for penalising characters who act against the rigid moral tenets of their religion (whatever those may be) -- their "Presence" would start to diminish (as well it might!). Old Wizard Marlet would be delighted! Likewise, the idea that sorcery spells "parasitise" their users is nicely thought out, and builds up into a game mechanic that nicely reproduces an existing Gloranthan prejudice. The Wizard's Staff (etc.) is a suitably dignified replacement for the overly-Familiar menagerie carried around by sorcerers in RQ3. The dilemma Wizards will now face - "Keep Magic In or Let It Out" - looks like an enjoyable one for players to wrestle with and balance. The mathematics seem largely to have disappeared, which can only be a good thing. This whole system looks plausible at first sight, and I shall be paying it close attention for the next few days, hoping to weasel out any flaws buried in it. Simply by noticing that most people in a sorcery-using society are not Adepts or Apprentices, then attending to their needs (rather than creating new kinds of Fireball), Paul has taken a great leap beyond most discussion on this topic. I am happily impressed. Three quibbles: The version of the rules I downloaded seemed to have a hiatus in the middle, about where the Presence-creating ritual "Trial" would probably have been detailed. Is this just my machine playing up, or wasn't it written yet? I'm not sure that we need to call the "anti-Fetch's" POW characteristic by any special name (after all, Shamans get by with "Fetch POW"): what we need is a name for this Spiritual Thing that Wizards have but the rest of us don't. "Presence" doesn't ring any bells for me. Nor do the obvious "spiritual" things -- "Genius", "Daimon", "Guardian Angel", etc. Ideas, anyone? Also, "Astral" doesn't work for me as a rules term, though certainly the West is big enough that some Wizards [including our lecturer] might think their magic came from the stars -- after all, they wear plenty of them on their robes! Apart from those, I have no conceptual problems with this (yet?), which is more than can be said for any other proposed Sorcery system I have seen. It has flavour! It has a social dimension!! It might even work!!! Thanks, Paul. Nick  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA07142; Wed, 9 Jun 93 19:18:55 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA17293; Wed, 9 Jun 93 20:17:21 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 9 Jun 93 20:18:57 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: SORCERY: Paul Reilly's system Date: Wed, 9 Jun 93 20:17:28 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <1232A0361A7@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Just a short note in response to Nick's note: There are some glitches in what I posted: this fall into typos, thinkos, and possible real problems. I apologize for any typos or thinkos and will try to clean it up this weekend and repost since there have been some favorable reactions. Credit where credit is due: this is (C) Paul Reilly and Mike Holliday. Just because he's not on the net doesn't mean that he doesn't exist! I'll be posting some stuff for him soon about Spirit Cult Regiments as well. (Or is it Regimental Spirit Cults?) Also, note that I sent substantially the same system to Oliver Jovanovic a week or two ago. He came back with some insightful comments and Gloranthan information (such as who uses staffs, Kralorelan mandalas, etc.) which has led to substantial improvements over what I sent him. The heart of the system, that I hope makes it into RQ4, is the parallelism between shamans and sorcerors, and the idea of sorcerors having a certain amount of magic that can be kept in reserve or out running in spells, instead of counting Duration on spells. Beyond this the mechanics are up for debate. I like Nick's ideas on tying the Presence to maintenance of vows and morals - I saw this the other way around, that the sorceror's libido had been 'killed' so that they no longer could break their restrictions. But it's possible that the Wizard could become corrupted, or, as the Lunars would say, begin to be Healed. All this leads back to the question of how one should build up one's personal _orenda_ in various cultures - the POW gain as it exists now seems wrong to me. Oh, and if anyone else manages to "weasel out any flaws buried in it" please email me so I can get to work on them! - Paul  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA09441; Wed, 9 Jun 93 21:03:38 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA19300; Wed, 9 Jun 93 22:03:32 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 9 Jun 93 22:03:40 EDT From: Carl Fink To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Reply to COMMENTS Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1993 22:02:56 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <124EE41507D@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> People have requested that replies be limited to one per day, therefore this will be quite massive. Sorry. First, a response to some of Nick Brooke's comments of Tuesday: >Why do you use "1d6" where the RQ3 rules use "1D6"? More to the >point, why use "RQIII" where RQ3 uses "RQ3"? You're also sloppy >about "statistic" where the rules say "characteristic". This is >a contamination from other games, and should be stamped out. Because we haven't done the final (or even penultimate) editing yet. We're still more interested in content than form right now. >You use uncommon and exotic examples in what should be the basic >Gloranthan rule book: nightingale floors, Oriental weapons and >martial arts, Krarshtkids and timinits.... True, and a very good point. >Knowledge Skills Modifier >This will be more useful if unaffected by POW (which affects too many skills as it is).... ...let's see, Knowledge, Magic and Stealth. That's too many? >Character Generation > >Arlia is lucky to have POW 10 and CON 15. This makes her look >good when rules which require you to divide POW by 5 or 30 by >CON come up. Rurik, with POW 12 and CON 16 would make the rules >look more clunky. So will most player characters. Rules examples >should be simple, but not deceptively so: showing how the >easiest of all possible characters gets through generation will >not help those who lack her natural advantages (and will find >themselves dealing in 0.05's of a characteristic point). Another good point. >General Note > >You keep supplying rules allowing players to roll their initial >culture, magical background, profession. Nobody sane would use >these; anybody insane enough would create their own. I'd prefer >my rule set not to include this generic, soulless twaddle. Nick, you seem to be using "nobody sane" a bit loosely. I know lots of people who like to roll randomly and generate characters based on the rolls - it's a challenge. That's why we have several ways to do it, so people don't have to use methods they don't like. Does the physical presence of a rule you don't use in the book bother you that much? >Can anyone explain why INT should not be increasable with time >and study, like any other characteristic? And don't use science, >IQ studies et al, as Glorantha isn't a scientific world. A >common man's perceptions tell him that long studies make you >more brainy; if the Gloranthan man believes this, then it's the >way the world works. (I don't need to remind you that the world >is also flat, and the sun goes round it: is "fixed intelligence" >more important to us than either of these?). Sure, make it >expensive, but it might as well be possible. > I agree. Now convince Oliver. >Cultural Equipment > >Give specific Genertelan cultures' weapon selections rather than >the "generic" lists here at present. Good point, and a good idea. > Also, rename Bezainted armour as Studded Leather: there is no >Byzantium in Glorantha. (Sog City isn't quite the same). And >reintroduce some of the "whimsical" items of professional >equipment into the profession lists; I was sorry to see them >gone. I favor removing Bezainted based solely on the fact that no two gamers I know pronounce it quite the same way, :-) >I hate POW gain rolls. They unbalance every RQ campaign against >every other, as no two GMs concur on when to allow them, how >frequent they should be, etc. Also, players distort their >characters' behaviour in order to earn them: worse than with >other "skill checks", as the potential reward is higher. >I would like to abolish them, and characteristic training in >general, and go the Pendragon way.... We're trying to maintain continuity with RQ-past and -present, which would make us very reluctant to simply discard POW gain rolls. What do people think of adding Stormbringer-style characteristic increases? (If you "stress" any stat, you roll 2D6. On a 7, the stat increases, on a 2, it decreases.) This would apply *mainly* to POW, but if someone, say, has to tightrope walk across a gorge full of Midget Slashers while juggling daggers blindfolded, they might get a DEX increase roll. The Pendragon system doesn't "feel" Gloranthan to me. Note also that Pendragon assumes a total of one adventure per game year, while Glorantha is much more active. > >Skill Training and Research > >Remove EVERY option to take a fixed increase instead of a die >roll. If we are afraid of being unlucky, why do we role-play >with dice at all? These ludicrous opt-outs distend the rules and >provide shelter for whining cowards. Be firm: let them grow up, >or drop out! Same as above - if this really bothers you, abolish fixed increases in your game (I am). Why enforce your taste on everyone? >Results of Damage > >I think dying of thirst or starvation would be among the last of >my worries if I was unconscious with a head wound. This looks >intensely silly, and should be changed: bleeding to death or >dying from exposure are far more immediate risks. > There was a case in today's newspaper - a man got beaten up badly at a party, and lay unconscious in an occupied apartment's living room for two days before anyone realized he wasn't just asleep! He died of thirst. >Fumbles > >These become far too common with weary or exhausted characters >having 10-20%+ chances to fumble. I'd suggest adding 1% to the >fumble chances of tired, 2% for weary, or 4% for exhausted >characters. Still tough, but not so ludicrously dangerous. Disagree - if someone tries to fight hand to hand while exhausted, they're going to be swinging long, heavy weapons while barely able to move, staggering, etc. I think lots of fumbles is (as software designers say) a feature, not a bug. >Sancta Simplicitas > >"When crossing more difficult terrain, multiply the above >distances and the practical maximum daily movement rate (and any >amount moved beyond that) by the appropriate percentage for the >terrain... Modifiers are cumulative... Arlia will have to make >another fatigue roll every 0.11 kilometers..." > >I rest my case. Write proper movement rules that you don't need >a calculator to use. Good point, we'll try. >Why should an adventurer who backs up a Rune spell with magic >points have to delay casting it? His god is taking the power >from him as the spell comes through: he is not manipulating it >as a spirit magician or blaspheming sorceror might. This looks >odd and feels wrong to me. Because the god isn't involved in casting divine magic. Gods grant mortals the power to cast spells, they don't intervene every time you cast Fly. They *can't*, the Compromise forbids it. Casting Shield is just as much casting a spell as casting Bladesharp. >Maneuver Skill > >Horrible and unnecessary. This should either expand to fill the >rules and eventually replace the DEXx5% roll, the DEX >characteristic itself, the Strike Rank system, and any similar >concepts, or else it should be killed at once. What can this do >that a DEXx5% roll can't? > Change with experience. Do you really think a recruit and a ten year veteran have the same skill at "ranging" opponents? As an ex-fencer, I can tell you that a few years of experience *matters* in this. >Wonderful to see slashes and crushes back in play. Maybe you >should run the impale/slash/crush rules together with the >Special Options (feint/flurry/weave/etc.) as other special >options in their own right: as you can't do special damage and >use a special option at the same time, it makes no real >difference, but does force weapon users to consider their >fighting style more closely. I thought we did. Most untrained people use impale/slash/crush, but one can be trained to use something else. >Is there really no DEX requirement to Feint? A Flurry should >depend on STR alone (the Airy characteristic), and not have a >wimpish DEX opt-out clause tagged on to encourage weedy emulators of my Orlanthi prowess... Okay, find a STR 20, DEX 8 person and have him flurry with a Morningstar. But not in the same room as me, please.... >Why doesn't Weave have a Maneuver prerequisite? Answer: because >...Maneuver skill is a mechanic that doesn't fit into the game >system! Because we didn't use skill prerequisites. Anyway, I personally never liked Weave. >And why has DEX 13 become so important all of a sudden? >It's >like living in RQ2 again: thresholds, thresholds everywhere! Half the people want more RQ2, half complain that it's too much like RQ2.... >Remove the naginata, shuriken, kukri et al. from the basic >weapon list and rules examples. Where we come from nobody uses >them; where they come from the gamemaster has already put enough >time and effort into designing a campaign to create his own >weapons list as well. Also, call a shortsword a shortsword, a >javelin a javelin, and find some non-academic term for >"composite bow" - horn bow, back bow, double bow, anything but >this horrible technical term that almost kills the game for me >each time I see it used. This is parochial again: "I don't use these weapons, so take them out of the game." If you don't want to use them, don't. If their presence bothers you, white them out. I for one run in the East Isles, and there's a Kralori character or three in other local games, so we need these weapons. >I am a great fan of culturally-specific weapons lists; if the >RQ4 table was broken up into Primitive, Nomadic, Barbarian, >Civilized and Exotic weapons I'd be a happy man (and players >would produce more reasonably-equipped characters). This makes a lot of sense. >Are you going to write more about all of the Six Worlds in this >section (perhaps reprinting the World of Glorantha: Glorantha >Book article in its entirety)? Not a bad idea at all. Ken? >Good to point it out. Can we have a bit more, please? Also >needed is information on the Spirits of the Dead: like the new >Daka Fal concepts relating to the Courts of Silence, the seven- >day downward path, and the crossing of the Styx. In which case >an article on the Gloranthan Underworld makes eminent sense >here. And if you're having that, there's no reason on earth not >to do the rest of the Six Worlds... Good idea in principle, but you forget that there is no "Gloranthan Underworld". Each culture has specific views and knowledge. An article on the Orlanthi ideas about the Underworld, if we had space, might go here. >Appeasing Spirits >...Remember also that we know shamans can do this kind of stuff; >don't set up a rule that makes it impossible for anyone else, >and difficult for them to boot. Why do shamans get a special >bonus as well as the advantage of having more MP on tap than >anyone else? Because that's what shamans do, what they're for. That's like asking why priests get so much divine magic. >Apparent Effects of Magic: > >Remove the reference to Krarshtkids from the basic rules. We >don't know or care how they work; if their senses are so >interesting, include a box on them where you write the species >up. Most normal folk will hope never to meet them (as with >timinits, kukris, naginatas, etc.). Another good point, except the last three words. :-) >...The random table is boring, colourless, and will only be used >by idiots; why should we help them? Because we want their money. >A rule that says players don't know how large their characters' >magic spells are is doomed to be ignored by everyone who reads >it. Better simply to say that you can't tell objectively how >large a spell that isn't yours is without some very >sophisticated magical perception. Right. I thought we said that the *characters* don't know numbers for the size of their spells. In any case, that's what we *should* say, you are quite correct. >...You should also note that spell effects vary as well as the >names. I'm a Humakti, and have piously learned Swordsharp 4. >Cast on a spear, this spell will have exactly NO effect: it >isn't "Bladesharp by another name", but a different, distinct >spell. Get people used to thinking like this and we'll have a >lot more realism and fun in our games. I'm not so sure we want to dramatically weaken Spirit Magic this way. (I.e if you learn Slay Pest, you can't hurt humans or elves.) BTW, "realism"? About Glorantha? >Befuddle: the kind of "clever management" that would be needed >now beggars belief. Cut this reference from the spell >description: it's hardly plausible any more. Also, as a 2-point >spell, Befuddle seems less useful than Demoralize. Befuddle is better than Demoralize to me. It renders the victim completely helpless, where Demoralize let's him keep fighting, or flee, or cast Fanaticism. >Mobility: also called "Athlete's Foot". Bwahahaha! >Have you considered including David Cheng's excellent RunePower >system as an optional rule in this section? It makes far more >sense than the current system (which still suffers from shades >of the D&D cleric), and is easily converted to by experienced >players without needing any stat. changes. (If you are >unfamiliar with the system, it basically turns the list of Rune >spells known by a character into a "pool" from which he can cast >any spell available from his god, selecting only at the moment >of casting). Nothing personal, David - NOT EVEN OVER MY DEAD BODY! Rune magic is spells, individual spells. It has nothing in common with a Champions Power Pool at all. Godunya magic does this, and only Godunya magic. >Learning and Using Spells > >I've often wondered why you don't give a straight 100% cast >chance. Why multiply die rolls unnecessarily? Greg said no. That's the only reason. >Madness: Befuddlement is no longer a severe enough penalty: >replace with Demoralize? I still say Befuddlement is *worse* than being demoralized. >Yanafal Tarnils (and through him the Seven Mothers) ought to >receive True Scimitar and not Truesword. I am pretty convinced >that a Yanafal Tarnils cultist who returns from the dead will be >afflicted with Humakt's Swordbreaker curse and find himself >unable to use straight-bladed weapons. Also that (in Genertela >at least) the scimitar is not a Humakti weapon (maybe it works >for the North War Wind with Pentan cavalry sabres, but that's a >different matter). The straightness of Humakt's path precludes >its use; as an a renegade and apostate, Yanafal has passed the >anger of his god onto all his followers, and introduced the >(originally Pentan) scimitar as a form of "curved Death" so he >could still fight. Nonsense. Sorry, but I *am* a Yanafals cultist who has returned from the dead, and this isn't how it works. Okay, seriously, this is not a rules question per se, it's a Glorantha point that should really be referred to Greg. >I detect envy of Warhammer Roleplay in some of your new skills. As far as I know I'm the only one in the group who has ever run Warhammer Fantasy, and I had minimal input into the skill system. It owes more to GURPS, I think. >These rules are obsessed with "Training". Stop and think for a >moment: does the Lunar Army have Scan classes? Jump classes? >Search classes? Intimidate classes, even? Would you be prepared >to role-play your characters through aday at such an event? Do >you know how these skills would be taught? If not, DON'T make >"Training" into such a fundamental part of every character's >life. I thought this was explained better. No, there are no Jump or Scan classes...but there are obstacle courses, and there are Scouting classes for future scouts. Oliver's example is a person who takes a Judo class four hours a week. After fifty weeks, he's got fifty hours of DEX training, fifty hours of Fist Attack training, fifty hours of Dodge training, and fifty hours of Martial Arts training under his belt. Yet he never attended a DEX class. >Bargain > >"The person selling the item will ALMOST never take a loss"? Why >this change to a good and sensible rule? To allow for con men. >Courtesan > >Better termed "Seduction", unless this is a females-only skill: >if you told the Red Emperor he was a master Courtesan he'd look >askance at you - if you were lucky! But it isn't "Seduction" - that's the art of making someone agree to sex, not the art of making them enjoy it. It should really be called "Swiving", but that's obscure. >Terrain Types >...Where in Glorantha do you find Arctic terrain? (answer: in >the Hero Plane/Outer World, where normal RuneQuest rules don't >apply). ...or on tops of mountains, or on Valind's Glacier, or ... ============================================================ And for those who've actually read this far, Loren. Loren, I hate Charisma. If it ends up in the game, I'm going to insist that it be labelled USE THIS NUMBER INSTEAD OF ROLEPLAYING. The whole purpose of Charisma is to let the players not have to be charming when they want their character to be charming. I am no martial artist, but I agree that the current rules don't simulate real karate/judo/savate/whatever too well. OTOH, all the suggestions we've seen for improving this add even *more* complexity to combat. Your "four flavors of damage" system, for instance, would probably slow some fights down by 50%. If included at all it would need to be an optional rule. > There's a thin line between TQM and Mutiny Hey, my company's been implementing Crosby-style TQM for a while. Does this mean I should take the CEO hostage? >i tried using the experience methods given in the new rules and >must say i don't particularly like them. i never had a problem >with check frenzy, which is the problem that the two experience >methods are supposed to fix, so i don't see the need for them. i >also don't like experience point systems, which is basically >what the new systems are. finally, i don't think it's a good >idea to make such a total break from the earlier experience >systems in rq 1-3. i would prefer if the new rules used the old >experience system, with suggestions on how to avoid skill check >frenzy, and perhaps gave one of the new methods as an option. of >course, this also would force a change in the >easy/medium/hard/very hard skill structure. Perhaps they should >simply have extra bonuses or penalties to skill rolls, like >steve maurer's idea in maurer heroquest? I included this whole thing because I agree. I represent a minority opinion that hates the "limited number of rolls" system, and I also had no problem with check frenzy. Okay, one problem, but I squelched it fairly quickly. >On reflection, I'd like to see only one difficulty level for >skills. Get rid of all the multileveled skills and all the >skills that encompass other skills. This is not elegant, guys. >This is a mess. This done, you may suggest that when rolling >for skill increases you can only roll for 10 skills or so. I >think that my objection to a limited number of skill increase >rolls sprang from the overly restrictive number and from the >"rules weenie feel" I got when this rule was combined with the >multiple level of difficulty rule. OTOH, some skills are just plain harder than others. How about this: when you succeed in an experience check in a Hard skill, you get 1d3. Ordinary skills you get 1d6, Easy skills 1d10, and Very Hard skills 1 point. How's that work? >Tell me if this system is workable: when rolling for >experience, you add your BASE CHANCE to the roll. Like normal, >you gain points by rolling over your skill level. This means >that you'll be able to increase faster with an easy skill (that >has a high base chance, like Jump) and more slowly with a hard >skill with a low base chance. > >And for training, have training time based on the number of >points you are above your base chance. I think this is good. Actually, I always ran this way under RQ3. I won't repeat Loren's whole language and script section, I'll just say that I agree with all of it. ============================================================== Graeme Lindsell > b) I don't like the new duration/range rules: access to the >better tables only if you spend a point of POW or spend as long >to cast a spell as it lasts. I don't like the first as I have >always seen POW creating some permanent effect (One-Use Divine >Magic an exception), and the second seems pointless. Well, the point of both was simply a game-balance thing: to cut down on the amount of magic a sorceror can keep up at a given time. Either he's lowering his power, or he spends all his time chanting and doesn't have time to keep very many spells up. As for POW always producing permanent effects: Divine Intervention. The Saints' Blessings. If you made it this far, I'm very impressed. Thanks to all of you for your suggestions and criticisms. -- Carl Fink carlf@panix.com CFINK (NVN)  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA11211; Wed, 9 Jun 93 22:13:27 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA20406; Wed, 9 Jun 93 23:13:27 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 9 Jun 93 23:13:31 EDT From: curtiss@netcom.com (Curtis Shenton) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: SORCERY Date: Wed, 9 Jun 93 20:13:45 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <12619415FBA@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> I've been thinking about the idea of Presence and the idea that it's somehow a sacrifice of the libido. Well I'm not too thrilled with that, I think it would tend to stereotype sorcerors too much I do think it's a step in the right direction. Here's my suggestions for how to manage Presence. First of all when a sorceror sacrifices POW for Presence he has to make a choice of how it will be maintained. He has to choose one of these three options each time, but he doesn't have to choose the same option each time. Option 1)Meditation/chanting/some other ceremony that takes half an hour per point of presence. Option 2)Bind the Presence with a geas. Some geasa can maintain more presence than others. For example "Don't cast healing magics on yourslef" might maintain 2pts, while "Don't cast magic during Dark Season" maintains 10. Option 3)Permanently bind the presence in an item or animal. This would help define the different dwarven types for instance, each group having a different set of geasa maybe? Would allow for those repressed sorcerors mentioned before, and even other options like, "Never cross running water"2pts "Magic doesn't work in sunlight"8pts... I'm not sure how to handle things like what happens if the sorceror doesn't do his meditation or breaks a geas. Are those points of presence just gone for a day? Maybe he has to undergo a ceremony to use them again, or maybe they are gone for good. Does anyone like this idea for restricting Presence? -- Curtis Shenton curtiss@netcom.com internet 4@3091 WWIVnet Currently working on something, I'm not sure what, for WotC  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA13084; Thu, 10 Jun 93 00:00:57 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA22103; Thu, 10 Jun 93 01:00:53 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Thu, 10 Jun 93 1:01:01 EDT From: davidc@cs.uwa.edu.au (David Cake) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Comments so far Date: Thu, 10 Jun 93 12:57:59 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <127E3DB5341@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> This is a reply to a few things that other people have said, all rolled into one to cut down number of posts. My comments on the draft will be posted shortly. Nick Brooke makes a few good points, but I strongly disagree about his insistence on removing stuff like fixed skill increases and the random culture tables. I don't use either myself, but I can see the possibility of using both in some situations, and most importantly think that they shouldn't be removed because some of us don't like it, if someone does. The same goes for removing exotic weapons - except this one is even more obviously campaign dependent. And even naginatas are found in Dragon Pass, albeit called sword sticks (used by Wind Children). The same goes for removing references to using the taining point mechanic after character creation - I have run campaigns were I would hve used it - short campaigns were seasons, or even years, might pass between adventures. I kind of like the classification of weapons by culture, though. I kind of agree with renaming bezainted armour - in my case because a friend of mine, Paul Kidd, an Australian professional game designer, always makes fun of RQ3 by pointing out that bezainted armour was very rare historically, but incredibly common in RQ3 :-) RQ4d2.0 has stopped that mostly, but even so I'd like to shut him up. I think that the Battle skill is a reasonable idea, but I dislike the fact that weapon skill has no bearing on sucess. Either use some sort of composite roll, or a more complex system. I kind of like the Pendragon system, where you fight 'token' opponents. I have used this in my games, and it worked quite well (the only real problem is that whereas the Pendragon system is 'timeless', each turn of battle being an arbitrary amount from a seconds (in an initial charge) to hours (in battles in silly terrain, with lots of skirmishing), time is very important in RQ battles because of the duration of spirit magic. Still, someone might at least want to look at it (the most recent edition is the relevent one). I thought Battle was a silly skill in the skill only version - but not in the Pendragon system, where mighty fighters with low battle skills fight a lot, but usually survive, and skilled soldiers fight fairly little, and also survive, but those not to good at either get themselves into bad situations (surrounded by enemy) and can't fight their way out. My comments on the draft will come soon. I have yet to read the Paul Reilly system of sorcery, but I like what I've heard. It needs to maintain a measure a backwards compatibility, but not slavishly. I also have intersting ideas on sorcery, and I will post them as soon as my exam is over - or send them to Oliver for comment, then post them. Cheers Dave Cake  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA01178; Thu, 10 Jun 93 12:01:59 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA09457; Thu, 10 Jun 93 13:01:58 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Thu, 10 Jun 93 13:02:02 EDT From: Anthony Ragan To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: SORCERY, SPIRIT MAGIC, SKILLS Date: Thu, 10 Jun 93 10:01 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <133E8F26C9F@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Hi all, I don't yet have a copy of the RQ4 rules, but I wanted to send a few comments on things I've read on this list. Sorcery: I absolutely love Paul and Mike's suggested sorcery system! This is light-years ahead of the RQ3 model. It has a wonderful feel to it, and it actually looks like it would work! :) I think the conquered/destroyed libido bit is a bit too restrictive for good roleplay, but it's a minor gripe and I'm sure something could be worked-out. But, on the whole, Bravo Paul and Mike! Spirit magic: I don't share Curtis's problems with the mechanical nature of spirit magic. I think the system works fine as is, allowing for the possibility of disastrous failure. As for the lack of color to the spells, any good roleplayer can add flavor to a bladesharp spell simply by saying something colorful rather than shouting "Bladesharp 3 -- I need less than a 65!" The system is fine as it is. Skills: I'm with Loren on this one. RQ has a good mechanic for resolving tests by applying a multiplier to a stat, with the degree of difficulty reflected by lowering the multiplier. The more we can avoid hair-splitting or limited-use skills and the more we can rely on stat checks, the better. (I'm a firm believer that simplicity and elegance in games) -Anthony ecz5rar@mvs.oac.ucla.edu IrishSpy@aol.com Rune Chia Pet of Ernalda  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA28174; Thu, 10 Jun 93 11:10:33 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA07423; Thu, 10 Jun 93 12:10:04 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Thu, 10 Jun 93 12:10:30 EDT From: "Loren J. Miller" To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: COMMENTS: sorcery, spirit magic, and the case for charisma (!) Date: 10 Jun 1993 12:06:40 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <1330AA674E5@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Here are various comments on comments by other people. PAUL'S SORCERY SYSTEM I also like this a lot. It allows for the longterm enchantments that exist in stories, has a very nice parallel to the shaman's fetch, and gets rid of that awful "INT vampire" familiar rule. It also gives adept sorcerors (who should actually be called "magus," and those who are now "magus" should be called "adept," but I quibble) an advantage over apprentices. It's much better. The ordeal portion is missing though. I may offer more comments on the system later, first for comments on comments. They're shorter and easier to respond to. Nick said that we don't need another name for the sorceror's extra POW that is used for holding spells. I agree. Nick asked what the sorceror's other half should be called, and suggested guardian angel, daimon, genius, etc. Daimon is probably out, given the religious right. Genius is confused with smart people. I like guardian angel, it is what Crowley and the Golden Dawn folks called the personal spirit that a wizard should cultivate. You could also call it the shadow, or the twin. You could combine them into shadow twin, but I think that should be reserved for evil wizards. Actually, now that I think of it, I vote for twin. It has the right generic feel. Now as to the twin being fortified by self-repression and damaged by licentious behavior, I don't know if that's a good idea. I can't see it in a Galvosti "evil" wizard. I can't see it in Zzabur if he had a child of a nymph. I would rather see something where the more POW the twin accumulated, the wizard would appear to be more strange and frightening. Pick an effect for each 5 POW in the twin: dogs howl; cats bristle; horses shy away; horrible countenance that only infants can see, spreading to children, to idiots, to teens, to adults, to elders, etc.; glowing eyes; gauntness; body odor; smell of brimstone; etc etc etc. You get the idea. I think I even have a list of these somewhere. I'll try to dredge it up. This would have the desired effect for wizards to hide away in their libraries. Wizards in cultures where they are required to lead congregations would have a different set of effects that didn't isolate them so completely. On to the astral plane, it is the plane on which the stars vibrate and live. It permeates the world. You didn't think the western wizards believed in all that sky captains malarky, did you? The stars are living beings in a plane that is contiguous with our own, and their reflections are what we see in the sky. That aside, it could easily be called phlogiston or ether, or alternate reality which is the culturalist's generic word for it. SPIRIT MAGIC COMMENTS I don't agree with those who want to make it any more chancy. It's already the least powerful magic on Glorantha. I'd rather return to RQ2 where you had a 100% chance of getting spirit magic off. Why play balance it to death? Are you the same people who cut sorcery to uselessness and fragmented shaman powers into a zillion pieces for the RQ4 draft? No thanks. Note that the RQ3 rule change, to cast chance=POWx5, was one of the rules that changed POW into the most important characteristic. RQ4 SORCERY DRAFT The duration wasn't changed to another table per se, each point of duration manipulation merely added a x1 multiplier to the duration. Thus a 6 duration spell lasts 6 times as long as a 1 duration spell. This makes it completely impossible to cast long duration spells. IMHO, the fix is worse than the original problem. THE CASE FOR CHARISMA Carl makes the point that Charisma is an anti-roleplaying stat. While I understand his concern, RQ4 has already proposed an enormous proliferation of communication skills which have exactly the same effect as CHA rolls. There are more of them than CHA. Adding more mechanisms for something in a roleplaying game increases emphasis on it. Thus the communication skills emphasize rollplaying of interactions much more than CHA does. CHA would increase roleplaying, not decrease it, because less time would be spent on mechanically driven interactions with NPCs. While we're on this topic it's a darn good reason to cut down on the number of combat skills. We don't want RQ to be a combat simulation game. We want to roleplay the cultural and religious interactions. That's what made RQ great in the first place. Reverse the trends that are de-emphasizing RQ's strengths and turning it into a Rolemaster clone. But this is a tangent. Back to CHA. Let's ground the debate about CHA in examples. (1) BARGAIN: Why not get rid of the Bargain skill and return to the RQ2 method of getting a discount based on CHA? It's much easier. If you don't roleplay out purchases, and nobody in their right mind is going to roleplay every little purchase that travelers in a market for a day will make, then it's faster than determining the bargain skill of the merchant and making opposed bargain rolls, then computing the adjusted price. Just compute CHA adjustments to price directly. No dice rolls needed. (2) ETIQUETTE: Same for other skills, like those horrible etiquette skills. I could see etiquette skills as lore skills, but they're silly as communication skills. Just use CHAx5 (or 4 or 3) with the appropriate lore skill as a helping skill and roll against it. (3) INTIMIDATE: Get rid of the intimidate skill and roll STRx5 or some similar skill. Maybe STR+SIZ+CHA would be another way to do it. There shouldn't be a skill for intimidate. Nobody takes "intimidate" classes. Nick is right. The RQ4 draft rules are obsessed with training. Oops. I'm on another tangent... You see where I'm headed. Make all the communication skills (except languages, which will split into their own group anyway) special instances of CHA rolls. Even if you use the standard excuse for not doing something reasonable to the RQ rules, that Greg says "no", I think that CHA ought to replace APP. Why? APP is a useless and sexist stat. 1. Sexist? Yes. For male characters APP tends to be unimportant. For female characters it is all-important. It objectifies women (!). If you wonder why more women don't play RQ, look no further. Just look in the adventures that people write. Adventures don't pay attention to male APPs, because they are unimportant, but they do pay attention to female APPs. When my players meet a female character, they ask how good looking she is because they know there's an APP stat. Do they ask the same about male characters? Are the RQ4 rules going to give fem PCs a bonus on the APP roll? 2. Useless? There are no official uses for APP in the rules. The only reason to increase APP is to get a pitiful bonus on communication skills. You all agree, and people routinely buy down their APPs because of this tacit agreement. The point system even counts APP at half value, and even at that value players are reluctant to spend points on it. whoah, +++++++++++++++++++++++23 Loren Miller internet: MILLERL@wharton.upenn.edu S sign lists littles what wetland received in phire bonuse --1M Monkeys  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA01507; Thu, 10 Jun 93 12:09:35 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA09683; Thu, 10 Jun 93 13:09:28 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Thu, 10 Jun 93 13:09:31 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: PR & MH SORCERY + Spirit Magic Date: Thu, 10 Jun 93 13:09:32 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <13408AD4A19@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Good points from Graeme A Lindsell. Of course I am pleased by the list of "pluses" Graeme gives. Thanks also for the "minuses", this is what I need to refine the system. To address the "minuses": > i) This makes it even more difficult to become a sorcerer: now you have That's more or less right. Being a sorceror should be a bit harder than being a priest, though, requiring POW and fairly high skills. A sorceror has to _understand_ his magic. As I understand it, a Divine spell is a sort of "power complex" imprinted on the priestess by her goddess. She doesn't _need_ to understand it any more than a computer needs to _understand_ a program in order to run it. Note that the deity isn't "doing the spell" _for_ the priestess (except in the case of DI and maybe one-use spells like Earthpower) but instead is trading the pattern for a complex of magical energies (the Runespell) for a piece of the priest's soul. The Wizard is doing his magic _himself_, and the prerequisites are higher. > ii)The current system may become unbalanced when sorcerers get a lot of POW. >Check out an adept with POW 16, PRE 20 and 80% in his skills >and spells: he can permanently maintain Enhance Strength 16 (80/5), >Enhance Con 16, Enhance Dex 16, Damage Resistance 16 without reducing >his PRE manipulation at all We are still working on the mechanics. Remember that we wrote this system while RQ3 was in force - we thought that if we were taking away most of the sorceror's ability to maintain jillions of spells, we'd have to give them something to compensate. Ours is actually _alot_ less powerful than RQ3. Compare Graeme's example of a sorceror in our system against an RQ3 sorceror with 80% skills and 15 points of enchantments (assume 75% efficiency for Enchant + Ceremony). The RQ3 sorceror could maintain _hundreds_ of high Intensity spells. (POW Spirits (ugh!) + INT Spirits (ugh!) + say a matrix for Damage Boost 8. One idea we had was that sorcerors might have to maintain _range_ as well as intensity and if you go out of their range the spell fails. This would give both a good reason for court sorcerors tied to their Lord's castle or city, and for "adventuring" sorcerors - who need to be close to the people they enhance. Commercial sorcerors would sell spells good only while you are in their home city. This has a lot of appeal but might be too hard to run. I like the idea of someone with an offensive spell Maintained on them being able to break it by going outside the range. We will try to rebalance with RQIV. The people working on the system seem to be willing to throw out most of the RQ3 rules in the quest for something that works. Our original idea with Presence was actually one point of Presence to maintain one point of Intensity, with sorcerors able to increase their effective Presence by specializing (in a Rune). This was how we playtested it first, years ago, and it seemed to work. People liked the idea of having a certain amount of magic and switching it around (at a cost in magic points) as needed. This may be the way to go with RQ4. We are working on the system and will send up another trial balloon in a few weeks. We always try to reverse engineer rules to fit Gloranthan society, and we now have more information available to us than when we first designed the system (through TotRM, and through generous people like O. Jovanovic who are giving us some help on the Gloranthan front.) > A few comments & questions: > i) Can sorcerers use magic crystals/POW spirits to fuel their spells >with the MP they need, or do the MP's have to come form the POW + PRE >pool? Good question. You do manipulation _with_ your own personal mana (includes your MPs+ MPs held in your Presence) but you can do it _on_ mana, or MPs, from other sources. As long as you have "fuel" you can shape more spells, but if you spend from your own personal force you will get too tired (low MPs) to shape spells. Think of your personal mana as active and mana from other sources as passive, and you can only shape as much passive mana as you have active mana. This also make things like Attack Soul devastating: if you can reduce your enemy's personal mana, you limit the amount of magic he or she can do. This wouldn't apply to mana used to fuel Rune magic: you don't have to shape the mana yourself, instead you are fitting it into a mold given you by your god. (I think.) Spirit magic would depend on which model you are using: is the caster doing it _herself_, in which case a person with 2 MPs left should be too tired to cast Lightwall, or does she have a helper spirit that's doing it (see my post from yesterday on Spirit Magic) for her? In the latter case the spirit just wants its "bribe" to do its "trick" and doesn't care if it comes from you or somewhere else. (Although that personal touch does make for a better relationship with your spirits.) ii) I don't think the formation of PRE should destroy the libido: we It's not exactly the _formation_ of it. The sequence goes like this for most Westerners: Presence "forms" or is extruded from them (like a fetch) They "kill" its personality and bind it in a dead, straight, linear, masculine object (Staff for most, Sword for Grand Knights of Loskalm) It stays "dead", affecting the sorceror's personality and (as mentioned in "What My Father Told Me" for Rokari) binding them to a cold, sexless, rational existence. "Shrill" was used to describe them - maybe they actually have low testosterone? Snodal could have not had access to High Magic (no Presence- remember this was before the Ban and the Hrestoli Reformation. Lords might not have been Wizards back then.) Or he might have done the ritual differently - some groups might use a living Staff and retain more libido. Or the Altinae could have "healed" him of his psychic wounds! I think the child was of an Altinae mother, after all. This last seems good for story purposes. Oh, they don't so much lose their libido as use it as fuel for their magic. Note that Kralorelans with their balanced male-female Mandalas may be using Tantric magic instead of denial. This would have to get decided by Greg, I suppose. > iii) Do they have to bind the PRE into an object/animal. Not necessarily. >Suggestion: they don't have to, but get advantages if they do. This is exactly right. I thought I posted something about this but may have just typed in into a file. The default is not to bind it - dwarves for example don't have a Power object (I think), they ARE their own power object. Sorcery is natural to them and their magic fits in with their jobs. They don't have a distinct point at which they learn to harness or control or suppress their feminine, _shakti_ nature - because they have no such nature. A sorceror with no power object (familiar, staff, etc.) will have Presence sort of 'sitting there' on him. This could be interpreted as chi energy (by Kralorelans) or a sort of Holy Guardian Angel (by Malkioni). (Suggestions for these interpretations from Oliver J.) Shamans would see these guys as closest to 'real' shamans, with a Fetch that is crippled but not bound. This type of sorceror would need to switch his attention completely to the magical plane to use his Presence. (Like a shaman, he is vulnerable because his attention is on the Otherworld.) The power object creates a "bridge" between the physical and magical planes. This makes the sorceror's Presence much more accessible (simply grasp the Staff) without shutting out the physical world. Much better for the combat sorceror. May also give certain other advantages - see below. BUT the Vessel (Staff, etc.) can be taken, crippling the sorceror! (As seen in Lord of the Rings - take Saruman's staff and deny him access to the High Magic) >If it is destroyed, can they recover the PRE? Yes, but it might be "scattered to the four winds". I'd say that Recall Presence is a High Magic skill, and they might have to sacrifice _more_ POW for Presence before they could get back the rest. They might have to wait until Sacred Time or even their birthday (anyone else read the _Liavek_ books?) before getting it back as well. > Spirit Magic: in another posting you suggested that spirit magic >may be more along the lines of knowing friendly spirits who give >you a hand when you gift them with mana. I once thought the same, >but concluded that there would be a major discrepancy with the >current system: if you have (say) a Protection 4 spirit (Armourall) >that did the actual protecting by inhabiting the armour of the person >it was cast on, then you should only be able to have one Protection >running at once. To cast it on someone else, you'd have to tell the >sprirt to leave it's current host and go to another. I can't see >any reson for the INT limit on Spirit magic with this system. Exactly. It's a system change to fit a certain model. Why have spell spirits anyway if they aren't doing the magic? It seems feeble to me to say there is a Source of Bladesharp Spirits sending out a stream of guys with no real will of their own whose only function is to get their spell knowledge ripped from them in Spirit Combat. The limit on spells would be more "How many spirits can you cajole and keep happy at once?" This could be skill based or cost mana or some combination thereof. Incompatible spirits would be hard to keep together, e.g. Extinguishers and Igniters - like a pack of unruly children. What did people think of the animistic world model? This is the one where everything has a spirit and you can bribe them to perform. E.g. Bladesharp is feeding the spirit of the sword a little mana so that it will put in extra effort. [Stuff about Greg's talk Down Under] > When I asked how the runes are used in the > game, he said he was de-emphasizing runes in general. They are > God-Learner constructs, which I think is Gregese for "Once I liked > the idea, but not anymore" A plausible translation. Of course I _like_ the God Learners, they seemed to be trying hard to find or _make_ a rational universe. "The Quest for the Square-Cube Law", anyone? (We actually had a Storm Bull, INT 9, who was an idiot savant Lightning Calculator. He couldn't understand how giant insects, etc. should be able to fly, and was unable to express his objections in an articulate way. Giant things just made him angry. We had a joke that he might quest for the Square Cube, a small cube of Truestone that would locally impose the Square Cube Law. He would have used it to fight giant chaos monsters, which would collapse under their own weight when the cube was brought near...) Anyway, thanks to Graeme for the response! - Paul  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA01769; Thu, 10 Jun 93 12:15:46 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA09900; Thu, 10 Jun 93 13:15:44 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Thu, 10 Jun 93 13:15:47 EDT From: curtiss@netcom.com (Curtis Shenton) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: SORCERY what to call a sorceror's fetch Date: Thu, 10 Jun 93 10:16:04 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <1342377772A@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> I do agree that we don't need to come up with a new stat for sorceror's. A shaman has a fetch with POW and that works fine. But I do think we need a name for this that doesn't sound to biased towards any one world view. I don't think guardian angel would work too well for dwarven sorceror's for instance. So why not just call it the sorceror's Presence and list how much POW the Presence has? I like the word Presence and we could explain that different cultures call it different things. The Malkioni call their Presence thei Guardian Angel, the Mostali call their Presence their SubEtheric Self Charging Essence Accumulator, the Trolls call their Presence their higher shadow, etc, etc, etc. -- Curtis Shenton curtiss@netcom.com internet 4@3091 WWIVnet Currently working on something, I'm not sure what, for WotC  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA10068; Wed, 9 Jun 93 21:30:21 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA19699; Wed, 9 Jun 93 22:30:21 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 9 Jun 93 22:30:25 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: PR & MH SORCERY + Spirit Magic Date: Thu, 10 Jun 93 12:29:22 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <12560F86B4C@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Re: the new sorcery system by Paul Reilly and Mike Holliday I like the Presence concept a lot! This was the idea I was trying towards when I proposed the non-recoverable magic points idea,but this has much more flavour. The pluses as I see them: i) Adepts now are given the real power: in RQIII there is no real difference in range/duration abilities between them and their apprentices. ii) Sorcerers now have a "magical" quality, rather than just having skills. iii) They have just as much use for POW gains as the other magicians. In the old system a sorcerer would use POW for enchantment. Some minuses: i) This makes it even more difficult to become a sorcerer: now you have to create a presence as well as learning a whole lot of skills that the other magicians don't need to bother with. This may be justified by the ability to cast long duration spells. ii) The current system may become unbalanced when sorcerers get a lot of POW. Check out an adept with POW 16, PRE 20 and 80% in his skills and spells: he can permanently maintain Enhance Strength 16 (80/5), Enhance Con 16, Enhance Dex 16, Damage Resistance 16 without reducing his PRE manipulation at all. The draft RQIV system, with skill/10 as the manipulation limit may be needed (Note to OJ: how does Ceremony, which increases effective skill, effect the skill based manipulation limit?) This is just a question of mechanics, which as you say are still up in the air. I had thought of removing duration as part of the unrecoverable MP system, and just using the MP as the limit of long duration spells. I didn't propose it since I was worried that a lot of sorcerers might just cast some spells once and just leave them on. I don't think this is as much of problem with the PRE system. A few comments & questions: i) Can sorcerers use magic crystals/POW spirits to fuel their spells with the MP they need, or do the MP's have to come form the POW + PRE pool? ii) I don't think the formation of PRE should destroy the libido: we know that Price Snodal (who as a Hrestoli lord would be an adept) had an illegimate child... It makes things more interesting if the wizards still have extra-curricular interests. :-) iii) Do they have to bind the PRE into an object/animal. If it is destroyed, can the recover the PRE? Suggestion: they don't have to, but get advantages if they do. Spirit Magic: in another posting you suggested that spirit magic may be more along the lines of knowing friendly spirits who give you a hand when you gift them with mana. I once thought the same, but concluded that there would be a major discrepancy with the current system: if you have (say) a Protection 4 spirit (Armourall) that did the actual protecting by inhabiting the armour of the person it was cast on, then you should only be able to have one Protection running at once. To cast it on someone else, you'd have to tell the sprirt to leave it's current host and go to another. I can't see any reson for the INT limit on Spirit magic with this system. However, the "little allied spirit" system is in other ways superior: it explains why cults don't like to give away to much spirit magic, as they only have a limited supply. It is IMO much more evocative of "real" magic than the current system. Re: Greg and the lesser emphasis on Runes: when he was in Oz last year he was telling us about the "Glorantha: the Game" system that Chaosium are working on. When I asked how the runes are used in the game, he said he was de-emphasizing runes in general. They are God-Learner constructs, which I think is Gregese for "Once I liked the idea, but not anymore" Graeme  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA04641; Thu, 10 Jun 93 13:27:52 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA12959; Thu, 10 Jun 93 14:27:46 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Thu, 10 Jun 93 14:27:51 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: COMMENTS: sorcery, spirit magic, and the case for charisma (!) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 93 14:27:50 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <13556CD58F6@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> In response to Loren: Thanks for the feedback! Individual points: >PAUL'S SORCERY SYSTEM Change to PAUL & MIKE'S system (& now incorporating feedback from other people as well, like Oliver) [Favorable comments] Thanks. >The ordeal portion is missing though. I'll try to write this up. May vary by culture, I need more info on what goes on behind closed doors at the Malkioni Rectory! Could base somewhat on Catholic Ordination... but would have to add strange twists. (Oh, Malkioni may _call_ the Ordeal "Ordination"!) Guardian angel is good for Malkioni. Familiar for animal users (it's 'familiar' because it's part of you!). Somehow I see the Dormali sorcerors who accompany ships using animals like monkeys, cats, etc., perhaps because on Earth sailors often picked up strange pets in foreign ports. Ship's cat is an old tradition as well. Darkness sorcerors (Subere initiates, Arkat Kingtroll) may just use Shadow. We think that they may even use their _physical_ shadow as a Vessel. Oh, Vessel = Object in which Presence is invested. Staff, mandala, familiar, etc. [Spooky effects for sorcerors] I like these very much. But I think that a Malkioni priest-sorceror may have project an ambiance that his flock sees as ethereal and holy, and pagans would see as weird, cold, and spooky! Cats and rats run from the holy man because their essential low and evil nature can't abide his holy aura - or is it that they're scared of the unnatural smell of magic around this man? Depnds on your point of view. >On to the astral plane, it is the plane on which the stars vibrate and >live. It permeates the world. You didn't think the western wizards >believed in all that sky captains malarky, did you? The stars are living >beings in a plane that is contiguous with our own, and their reflections >are what we see in the sky. That aside, it could easily be called >phlogiston or ether, or alternate reality which is the culturalist's >generic word for it. This is very good, someone will have to tun it byu Greg though. Natural influences of the stars, like "orlanth's ring" are interpreted by superstitious pagans as messages from their gods! When the New Star flared, a great but misguided Natural Magician (Sheng Seleris) learned to tap its energies for spectacular effects! (Or he was born under it.) When the star failed, Sheng was left powerless and easily captured by his enemies! Now the question is, was that nova cyclic or not? Spirit Magic >Note that the RQ3 rule change, to cast chance=POWx5, was one of the >rules that changed POW into the most important characteristic. I don't mind POW being most important if it should be in the context of the world. If I was running an Iroquois campaign, _orenda_ would be the basic stat! But if POW is the basic currency of Gloranthan power, it should be less fluky in how it grows. (Unless there is no overall scheme to things and Luck is actually the Ruling Rune) >RQ4 SORCERY DRAFT Loren thinks they've overcorrected. I think so too but much less strongly. I think the idea of quick casting for short duration vs. ritual casting for long duration is OK, just needs tweaking. (Of course I like our system better, like your own vs. neighbor's children) >THE CASE FOR CHARISMA I agree with Loren that Charisma is a good stat. I liked Charisma. Saying it should be a function of player decisions combined with skills doesn't quite make it for me. We all know examples of someone with inexplicable charisma, perceptible but not easily broken down into (Orate 65/5 + App 8 + Smile 75/5)/3 = CHA 12 or some such. Ugly and inarticulate people can be Charismatic and smooth talking good-looking people can be repulsive. I think Charisma is more basic than Appearance in many ways. I also like stats that are close to what you want to use in a game. For example, I want to be able to run a freckled, jug-eared Trickster with an idiotic grin who is nevertheless so likable that people keep him around in spite of his practical jokes. How do we represent this character with APP and Skills? It seems fine to me to say, "His Charisma comes from his appearance. Hers is because she's always so nice. That beautiful woman is considered a bitch." What we want in all these cases is to extract the basic reaction modifier and relegate its source to the realm of unquantified description, like hair color or finger length. On the other hand, skill proliferation never bothered me much. I think there should be some blank spaces where you can put in what skills are important to you (like GURPS). Merchants, even ugly crass merchants, live by Bargaining and a merchant character should quantify this. On the other hand the merchant may not want to bother with separate skills like Attack, Parry, Fast-draw as she tries to avoid this sort of thing altogether. >Make all the communication skills (except >languages, which will split into their own group anyway) special >instances of CHA rolls. Uhh... great for a fighter but how about a diplomat? What you want represented in detail depends on the type of campaign you want to run. I could see a Traders game where weapons skills are just DEX x 5% for guards and DEXx3 for Merchants, and Bargain, Evaluate, Fast-Talk, Bribe, etc. are the real basis for the game. [ I actually like the way VAMPIRE: the Masquerade does skills, but that's too big a jump from the base system. Besides, while their basic idea is good they have a lot of bugs in their system, more than RQ.] > APP is a useless and sexist stat. Appalling but true. >When my players meet a female character, they ask how good looking >she is because they know there's an APP stat. Do they ask the same about >male characters? True in my experience also - with some exceptions. Magicians and fighters get rated on prowess regardless of sex. My PCs first reaction has grown to be threat assessment. Also, in our expedition to Esrolia, male APP suddenly took on real meaning. I modelled male Esrolian behavior on birds who try to display themselves to best advantage. This hinged on money for clothing as well as Appearance - the women (who controlled the real property) wanted to be able to see how much dowry a prospective mate would bring by looking at him. >2. Useless? There are no official uses for APP in the rules. The only I think this is true. I bet that there would be for Charisma. >The point system even counts APP at half value and ... players are reluctant True in most cases - but sometimes a player has a strong character concept that overcomes this reluctance. We had a campaign where each player got to pick an "18" for one stat and roll the rest on 3d6 (or 2d6+6). One of the male players picked APP for a male character, the handsome Sir Michael of Ashford. The handsomeness fitted in with his idea of a well-bred Malkioni Knight. But that's very much the exception. Designed characters will stint on APP, because it isn't used. I think that mental skills should be at least split into Intellectual and Social, and that Charisma can serve as Social Intelligence (including any modifiers for physical appearance, etc.) This gives you the derived stat you want, Reaction Modifier.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA11570; Wed, 9 Jun 93 22:36:00 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA20804; Wed, 9 Jun 93 23:36:01 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 9 Jun 93 23:36:04 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Reply to COMMENTS by Carl Fink Date: Thu, 10 Jun 93 13:35:10 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <12678F57C47@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> While most of your reply to Nick I either agree with or have no opinion on, I must agree on the subject of the new fatigue rules. Most of the new fatigue rules are very good, allowing one to carry greater weights, requireing less bookkeeping, long term exhaustion etc. I see a major flaw in the penalties: applying a modifier to the dice roll rather than the skill. I think this is flawed because: i) It has much greater effects on chance of criticals and fumbles than of you actual skill. This will result different effects on combats depending on the skills of the combatants. For example: a combat between two characters with 30% combat skills. One becomes tired, -5 to dice roll. The result is that his chance straight skill success drops from 30->25%; no great problem. Critical goes from 2->1%: same again. Specials from 6->1% and fumbles from 4->9 are more of a worry, but not too much: in a combat between people of these skills the important thing is just to land the first blow. Compare this with people with 95% skills one of whom becomes tired. In combats at this level criticals and specials are of vital importance. The tired 95%er has gone ordinary 95%-90%, special 19%-14%, critical 5%-1%!, fumble 1%->6%. Proportionally, the effects on his chances of success seem to be much worse than for the 30%er. ii) It is a bad precedent. It introduces a second type of success modifier into the game. Up to now all modifiers have been to chance of success, now there are modifiers to both chance and dice roll. This can firstly cause confusion but secondly will inspire GM's to use the die roll modifier in other situations, spells, magic items etc. I don't want to see a calcualtion of success involving: "Lets see 87% skill + 30% for bladesharp -20% for fighting from the ground; for the dice roll -10 fatigue, +5 for your lucky sword, -15 for monsters chaotic feature..." iii) It distorts the game system. Up to now critical has always been 5% of chance of success, special 20%, fumble 5% of failure. Die roll modifiers change this totally, and I think unnecessarily. iv) I have always seen critical and fumbles as a product of two things: skill and luck. The die roll modifiers for fatigue seem to have very little effect on skill (95%->90%) but a huge effect on luck: if you look at the fumble tables they are mainly cases of bad luck; criticals are mainly those lucky blows. Fatigue with die roll modifiers seem mainly to be bad luck. My suggestion for fatigue: keep the rest of the excellent current system, but apply the modifiers as a straight modifier to chance of success, like all other modifiers. This creates a problem with very highly skilled people being unaffected by fatigue, which is obviously unrealistic. Forunately, there is another number we can use: the chance of autofailure, which is currently fixed at 96-00%. If we apply the same modifier to autofailure as chance of success, we get the following Status Mod to Success Autofail on Tired -5% 90-00% Weary -10% 85-00% etc (I can't remember the other statuses) I can see a skilled person simply failing to succeed when tired much more easily than I can see him criticalling his nearest friend. I don't see the autofail as being very likely to be used in other ways. This also doesn't distort all the chances of criticals/specials/fumbles as does the current proposed system. Opinions? Graeme Lindsell a.k.a gal502@huxley.anu.edu.au (my mailer isn't giving my address in the title properly)  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA08382; Thu, 10 Jun 93 14:58:21 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA16485; Thu, 10 Jun 93 15:58:17 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Thu, 10 Jun 93 15:58:22 EDT From: Anthony Ragan To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: (COPY) Re: SORCERY (fwd) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 93 12:57 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <136D8E54A4C@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> {Curtis writes} This would help define the different dwarven types for instance, each group having a different set of geasa maybe? Would allow for those repressed sorcerors mentioned before, and even other options like, "Never cross running water"2pts "Magic doesn't work in sunlight"8pts... I'm not sure how to handle things like what happens if the sorceror doesn't do his meditation or breaks a geas. Are those points of presence just gone for a day? Maybe he has to undergo a ceremony to use them again, or maybe they are gone for good. Does anyone like this idea for restricting Presence? -- >>Thanks to Curtis for forwarding this to me: the Net-Snotlings seem to have eaten the original. I like the idea of using geasa to restrict/define a sorceror's presence. The geasa can be varied to fit the cultural millieu of the sorceror. Actually, all three option look good at first glance, including Paul & Mike's original libido-binding (as the preferred method of the Loskalmi culture). Would it be possible to work-out a table of the various methods and what their costs and benefits would be? Or, does this over-complexify things? --Anthony ecz5rar@mvs.oac.ucla.edu IrishSpy@aol.com  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA11447; Thu, 10 Jun 93 16:15:50 -0500 Return-Path: <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA19850; Thu, 10 Jun 93 17:15:45 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Thu, 10 Jun 93 17:15:51 EDT From: Nick Brooke <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: COMMENTS on Carl's Reply to Nick's Comments Date: 10 Jun 93 17:10:50 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <138237D50FF@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> This is basically for Carl Fink re: his posting on my Comments so far, but it may help explain what I was on about, so the rest of you may enjoy it. Wouldn't bet on it, though... Hi, Carl: Thanks for the reply! I'm probably only addressing a few of the points you raised; I am extremely grateful for all the sections you signed off with "good point," etc. Nice to have my work appreciated, so I hope you don't take this as a whinge! I'm going to try to cover the points where I don't think we quite understand each other yet -- where one of us still thinks the other's criticism doesn't make sense. OK? Here goes: GRAMMAR: > We haven't done the final (or even penultimate) editing yet. That's more or less what Greg said when he sent me the KoS Ms. to check. He didn't tell me that he wasn't *going* to do it, which is why all the irritating typoes stayed in. After that, I felt, "most said, soonest mended": my terrible experience in proofing various Reaching Moon products has taught me to start insisting on changes as soon as I notice something is wrong, and not to let up until it's got better. In your case, a simple WP search-and-replace could clear up all my petty quibbles before the next draft. I'm only offering this as a suggestion: since you're writing RQ, you might as well speak RQese all the way through. SKILL MODIFIERS: > (POW affects) Knowledge, Magic and Stealth. That's too many? If POW keeps zinging up and down like a yo-yo with every POW gain roll and Rune Magic sacrifice and Divine Intervention success, *YES*. I know I also suggested a mechanic for getting rid of this (one of the major problems with RQ3) -- the "alternate use for Skill Mods" -- but this comment was written in vacuo, assuming you wanted to keep the rule the way you'd written it, and pointing out a problem with it. As POW is the most changeable characteristic, it should influence as few skills as possible under present Skill Mod rules. Plus, removing it from Knowledge made my INT*1% base Lore skill suggestion possible and therefore appeared to me to be a Good Thing. (These things do inter-connect, you know). RANDOM ORIGIN TABLES: > Does the physical presence of a rule you don't use in the book > bother you that much? No. But why should I passively acquiesce as something I find useless is grafted onto the game? Like I said, I thought you wanted my opinions... See further below. CHARACTERISTIC INCREASES: > What do people think of adding Stormbringer-style characteristic > increases? I'm against them. The 1/6 chance of losing a point of the characteristic you've just excelled in is alarming to me. Still prefer my method, which involves no counting of hours or flukey dice rolling. (Characteristic points are significantly bigger than skill gains, so I don't feel I'm contradicting myself by wanting a random die-roll for the one but fixed increases for the other. Though, by apologising for it, I inadvertently reveal that I do think there's a contradiction. Funny thing, psychology...) SKILL GAINS: > If this really bothers you, abolish fixed increases Fixed increases were OK when they were *less* than the average die roll: you knew then that if you took them, in the long run you were cheating yourself. Making them equal to the average die roll is an unwelcome and unnecessary change. But my feelings on this are really answered below... > Why enforce your taste on everyone? Because I *have* taste? No, but seriously, Carl, you are confusing our roles here. You are one of the coordinators / editors / designers / whoevers for RQ4. Naturally, you want to consider the opinions of the hypothetical Average Gamer in whatever you end up producing. But you sent that draft out into the world asking us for our comments. I understood your consultation exercise to be asking for my opinion, and not for me to tell you what I think other people might think about RQ4. So I don't feel I should pussy-foot around providing you with anodyne, politically correct, non-racist, non-sexist, positively-vetted comments. Surely, I should tell you what *I* think. What you do with it is up to you. DEATH BY STARVATION: > There was a case in today's newspaper... And my paper says there's a WWII bomber on the Moon, but I don't think that's how Sheng Seleris got there . Seriously, though, you can't deny that, as written, the rules for effects of head wounds do look rather strange. FATIGUE AND FUMBLES: > I think lots of fumbles is (as software designers say) a > feature, not a bug. I think it's a bug. So do others. Have you playtested this at all? MAGIC: > Casting Shield is just as much casting a spell as casting > Bladesharp. Here we disagree profoundly. I can't adequately express how I feel the difference between the two should be stated; it's just *there*. I believe to cast a Rune spell you have to invoke your Deity's power, and it comes. In a rush. That's why Rune magic hits with 100% accuracy on SR 1. Delaying this because a cast is physically draining (i.e: requires MPs to back it up) feels like putting the cart before the horse. You are staggered by what has just happened to you / through you -- you do not need to work yourself up into a state to cause it to happen. My apologies for the inadequacy of that explanation: I hope someone else out there can put it better. (More below). MANEUVER SKILL: I'm still not convinced. This skill seems to interfere or interface with too many other aspects of the combat and skill systems, and they've not yet been adequately modified to accept it. Maybe next draft will do a better job. But I still think it's basically one for the hex-map crowd, and you know I'm agin 'em. EXOTIC WEAPONS: > This is parochial again: "I don't use these weapons, so take > them out of the game." I modified my position later to "Take them off the main list;" you seem to like the idea of culturally-specific weapons lists, so that's OK. I accept that some people out there are, indeed, "gung-ho for pandybats" (in the immortal words of earlier editions), but don't think the atmosphere of the game is really helped by lumping all these things together on one cultural mish-mash of a weapons table. Wind Child naginatas should be listed, as "sword-sticks", when the Wind Children themselves are described -- just like the Runners' "whip-sticks", the Black Elves' "hesh", and any similar weapons that may have slipped my mind. APPEASING SPIRITS: My comment still stands. The current mechanics make it almost impossible to appease a spirit, even if you are a shaman giving your all. Please reconsider your rejection: I'll follow this one up if it persists to the next draft, giving embarrassing worked examples of what I'm complaining about (like David Hall in his diatribe on Run skill). RANDOM SPELL APPARENT EFFECTS TABLE: Frivolously, (and that's a Large grin). I *approve* of your attitude. Seriously, though, when would anyone roll for these? "Longhorn the Broo Shaman reaches into the air, and a" -- whirr, click -- "brown nimbus forms around his fingers. Then, with a" -- whirr, click -- "slight disturbance in the air ..." Give us a break! SPELL NAMES = SPELL EFFECTS? > BTW, "realism"? About Glorantha? Yeah. It's not "Gloranthan realism" for a Sword of Humakt to know a spell that's damn' good at enhancing Spear skills and damage. Else, why not give all warrior cults "True Weapon" rather than "True (Weapon)" as a Rune spell, and then trust them only to cast it on appropriate ones? "Slay Pest" (Disrupt) would still be a general damage-inflicting spell; I only said it was embarrassing to use it in combat, not ineffective. Proper Humakti, whose "Wound" (Disrupt) spells open gory gashes in their opponents, would laugh as the farm-boy "swatted" his opponents... BEFUDDLE: > Befuddle is better than Demoralize to me. It renders the > victim completely helpless... It used to. Have you re-read the new definition I was criticising? RUNEPOWER: We all love it, and can't see your problem. Optional rule with statutory Health Warning from the Surgeon General? PHILOSOPHY OF RUNE MAGIC: I was talking about RunePower with Greg Stafford and David Cheng at Convulsion, and something he said made me prick up my ears. Appropriately enough: we were talking about how David's system gave us Orlanthi access to all the *fascinating* (but normally completely useless) cultural spells that most guys don't bother sacrificing for. I mentioned how players could now have their characters cast Wind Words if they ever found themselves downwind of a potentially-interesting conversation. Greg grinned, and said something to the effect of, "Or, what if they were walking past and just *happened* to overhear the words carried on the wind?" (simultaneously losing a point of RunePower). After all, that's what happened to Orlanth. He just *heard* these things -- he didn't have to strain to do so. Now, that's obviously going to take a *lot* of work to turn into a game system, and I wouldn't advise you to try just yet. It does, however, seem to militate against Rune Magic = conscious exercise of spell effects taught by God, and towards a more free-form, storytelling style of gaming -- like that fostered by RunePower. Hey, before we have to step over your dead body, why not ask Greg what he thinks of RunePower? He recommended it to us, after all, as being a neat rule that made Glorantha work more as he thought it should... BARGAIN: A con man is misrepresenting his side of the Bargain. The bargainee won't take a loss if he perceives it as such. Nobody would accept a bargain if they knew that they weren't going to get paid the agreed price, or receive the agreed goods. Criticism still stands. COURTESAN: Check the Uleria cult description of this skill to find out what it includes: "verbal enticement, coercive seduction, titillating entertainment..." are under its umbrella definition. Then ask whether you only want women to be good at sex in Glorantha. I *like* your suggested skill-name of "Swiving," and may steal it for a still-far-distant Lodrili game... TERRAIN: Valind's Glacier is in the Hero Plane / Outer World, no? And who would have a skill in "surviving on the cold mountaintops"? Valindi, or Inorans, or Hsunchen Yak People from the Shah Shan, perhaps. Nobody else is likely to bother. I don't think Arctic skills belong in the basic rules... unlike Desert, Plains, Forest, Jungle, Hills, Mountains, and whatever else was in the original set (or should have been). ===== not my stuff ===== I hate Charisma too. (Perhaps it's not having any myself that does it). However, I'm agin it in principle, and will fight tooth and nail to keep it out of RQ4. Loren's argument that people never look at a man's APP, only a woman's, may be true among his group but certainly isn't here. Maybe it's a question of playing style... (I agree that, if I had to axe one of the RQ characteristics, it would certainly be APP). SKILL DIFFICULTY: > When you succeed in an experience check in a Hard skill, > you get 1d3. Ordinary skills you get 1d6, Easy skills 1d10, > and Very Hard skills 1 point. How's that work? Looks OK to me as a Quick Fix. Still not convinced. Give me time (and a fresh draft with fewer distracting exotica in it) to think about it. I think I'd prefer skills to be "Hard" or "Normal," not this somewhat overwhelming range of possibilities. SCRIPTS & LANGUAGES: This is a Good Thing, and I was trying to say something like this when I burbled on and on about alphabetic and syllabic and symbolic character-sets. You can probably adapt most scripts to write most languages: the problem in doing so is finding somebody else who knows the same combination to read them. At Oxford, people sat Akkadian Cuneiform prose composition exams armed with pen and paper -- no stylus, no wax or clay tablet. How depressingly mundane of them... Anyway, thanks a lot for the feedback; I hope this dialogue has been useful to at least a couple of people out there. ==== Nick ====  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA11959; Thu, 10 Jun 93 16:31:41 -0500 Return-Path: <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA20367; Thu, 10 Jun 93 17:31:42 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Thu, 10 Jun 93 17:31:43 EDT From: Nick Brooke <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: SORCERY: Libidoes in Bondage! Date: 10 Jun 93 17:24:39 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <13867107A7E@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> A quick but vital point: Let's not overdo the sexual aspect of libido binding. We know that the Rokari Wizards are not celibate. While they stress marital chastity, a hereditary priesthood advocating total celibacy is on a hiding to nowhere... I like the idea of sectarian lists of Vows (*not* called Geasa -- that's barbaric!) to distinguish between different types of Wizard. Some vows you would take before "wrestling with your Id" (to strengthen yourself in the "Fetch-Crippling" Trial), while others would be required as your "Presence"/Second POW score built itself up. They'd also include such things as abstinence from meat and wine (pretty common), never touching a corpse (Brithini influence -- a Rokari vow?), never entering sunlight (one for the Stygians, there), never killing anything (Galvosti as well as Sedalpists) ... these are just off the top of my head. Apparent manifestations of a high "Presence" would include Haloes, Odours of Sanctity, and perhaps the odd Hallelujah Chorus? Nick  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA29678; Fri, 11 Jun 93 07:02:04 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA03868; Fri, 11 Jun 93 08:01:57 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Fri, 11 Jun 93 8:02:04 EDT From: joe@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: MAGIC (mostly) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1993 23:06:26 MEZ Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <146E8E60029@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Since Oliver voted for one posting a day, here my collected answers: Paul Reilly: PR>> Long lasting spells have no fixed Duration, instead they are maintained by a Sorceror's Presence until he Recalls that Presence. Thus the sorceror has a certain amount of magic, which he can have "out in the field" in long duration spells, or can "keep in reserve" as Presence. Recall Presence is a new magic skill. One still must spend Magic Points to cast the spells, thus there is a cost associated with switching one's magic. <> PS: concerning not recovering MP's for spells that are still on. (Joerg) We tried another variant that was a bit of fun: spells act as MP parasites, they need their intensity/day in MP's to function. They draw this from the person the spell is on or from the casting sorceror. Typically this comes from the MP recovery rate of a willing subject. Thus the warrior with a 3 enhancement to strength and dexterity and 2 points of Spell Resistance will have 8 points cut from his daily MP recovery rate. This limits the amount of magic on a person (to his POW) and also accounts for the hostility of shamans (who see the spells as little spirit parasites) and priests (who think that MPs should be used for worship if possible) to sorcery, and why people from other cultures don't even want it cast on them. This system preserves the basic feel of RQ III Sorcery while imposing some limits and a cost to the person using it, and discourages spirit magic users from getting sorcery cast on them as well. (If your MP recovery rate is cut to 2 points a day, you don't really want to cast Heal 6 and Bladesharp 4). <> I don't know if this has been discussed to death before so please bear with me. My question is, do we have to keep spirit magic the way it is? <> What I'd like is something like Bladesong a spell you learn like a normal skill, you can get +5% for each round spent chanting/singing up to +50% and when you roll for each 10% you make it by you can the equivalent of 1 level of bladesharp. This way a warrior would have a reason to spend lots of time reciting a charm over his sword rather than a quick muttered prayer to cast Protection 3 and another one for Bladesharp 1. You never know how well the spirits will respond but the better/longer the prayer the better the magic you'll get. Spirit magic as it stands now is 1)Vey mechanical and 2) works too reliably. If this topic has been beaten to death please feel free to ignore me. :) <> Is there any value in getting small shields? I mean, once players get the cash, they will just upgrade to large ones unless there is some disadvantage to having them. <> I think Throw and Catch should be part of the same skill, much like I feel that punch, kick and headbutt should be rolled into "Brawling" and Grapple, Hold, Escape rolled into "Wrestling". <> I'm not too fond of adding another attribute, PRE. But then, I was not happy with Steve M.'s WIL in his heroquest rules. <> I really like this idea. One problem I think all three magic systems in RQ have is that their are really countless magic systems in Glorantha. And there is really no way to fix this. Writing up a seperate magic system just for Godunya worshippers doesn't make sense. So the next best thing is to base it off of sorcery. But by emphasing the ways the three magic systems are similar I think later variations(like Godunya or even Lunar magic) will be easier to develop. The similarities will hopefully help people customize later magic systems for different parts of a Glorantha campaign. After all I don't think Mostali magic should be _exactly like Malkioni sorcery, just very similar. <> I really like the parellel here. It always seemed to me that if the shaman could develop part of himself into a fetch other cultures and worldviews would be able to do soemthing similar. In fact given the nature of Glorantha I'd be shocked if no one else developed something like this. I also like the conecpt of Presense. I once tried to develop something along the same lines myself( I was using lounar magic for sorcery and just ignoring the RQIII sorcery system) and was basing the was basically a substitute familiar and the wizard was really at a only fixes many problems with the current sorcery system it will be a more interesting system to characters in. The mindset of sorcerors under the presence system will be more in line with what I think of when I think of a wizard. < don't do anything for atmosphere. And the parallels to spirit magic went farther than I liked - if sorcery is presented as spirit magic with somewhat different manipulation, call it lunar magic, or skip it. If the way to a similar effect differs (as does damage resistace from protection in RQ3), the different system is justified. CS>> That's too bad. I've always liked the runic ties of the Western Wizards. Any chance you'll post this system to the regular RQ digest? <> Nick Brooke wrote: > Agree with the sentiment and the approach. This looks like a good moment > to chuck in my ha'penn'orth (mechanics, I'm afraid). Something we tested > last Sunday was a Spirit Magic casting die-roll of 1D20 against POW (rather > than the old POWx5 +- Magic Bonus - ENC on 1D100). Similar to some > Pendragon mechanics. My original idea was this: << Bad idea. One type of die roll to determine success, please! Even if this is trivial, any distraction from here and we get AD&D. And, please, make absolutely clear wether or not to add magic skill modifier to spirit magic success rolls, and make sure too to warn about the effect of Encumbrance, remention it in the spell percentage section of the data sheet! B>NB>> > Chuck in the new Magic skill of "Focus" (gives +1 to effective POW per 5% > of skill for the purposes of spirit spell casting only), and you can tell > the professional spirit magicians from the amateurs. Get a high enough > skill at Focussing, and you can cruise through magical engagements under > your own Power (all those critical rolls). <> BTW, I'd like to chime in now and express my hope that, whatever form Spirit Magic takes in RQ4, they will drop the silly POWx5% on 1d100 and just roll POW on a d20. Functionally identical, and simpler. And it's not as the game doesn't use d20's already. <> Paul Reilly: Loved your sorcery system. I'd recommend using the rule of one point of PRE per point intensity of spell maintained. Though the other would be more useful to beginning sorceror characters. <> A hybrid approach would rule would be to require at least one PRE to maintain each long duration spell, but that any such spell can be dispelled as if it's intensity were one. More PRE can be used to back it, up to it's intensity, to increase the power require to dispel it. <4, 3->9, 4->16, ... If the spell casting time is counted in hours per MP, make it this number times 1 hour)? -- -- Joerg Baumgartner joe@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA15449; Thu, 10 Jun 93 17:20:08 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA21981; Thu, 10 Jun 93 18:20:03 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Thu, 10 Jun 93 18:20:10 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: SORCERY: Libidoes in Bondage! Date: Thu, 10 Jun 93 18:20:02 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <13935E176DC@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Paul here, responding to Nick: >Let's not overdo the sexual aspect of libido binding. We know that the Uhh.. something just occurred to me. Everyone knows "libido" is not identical in meaning to "sex drive", I hope? Binding the libido is more like harnessing one's basic life force than just not having sex. Rokari Wizards (at least) do Vow celibacy, but that's just one way of yoking the libido. Kralorelans are just as likely to use Tantric Yoga or some equivalent. >I like the idea of sectarian lists of Vows (*not* called Geasa -- that's >barbaric!) ^^^^^^^^ Typically, Nick means _exactly_ what he says in this case. Maybe Greg can be contacted for some ideas on Vows. In any case I will be trying to incorporate this in the beta test version. >Some vows you >would take before "wrestling with your Id" (to strengthen yourself in the >"Fetch-Crippling" Trial), Nick has captured our ideas and is re-expressing the whole picture more clearly than I did in the first place. Also included in this strengthening period are the endless hours of seemingly pointless idiot-work typically demanded of apprentices. (Has everyone seen "Dragonslayer"?) If you can't concentrate on tending the fire under an alembic for sixteen hours, how do you expect to perform High Magic rituals without faltering? >while others would be required as your >"Presence"/Second POW score built itself up I see these more as "symptoms" than "Vows" but I tend to think of sorcerors as seriously bent people! >[Good list of possible Vows] All good ideas. I don't know what will pass Greg, though... >Apparent manifestations of a high "Presence" would include Haloes, Odours >of Sanctity, and perhaps the odd Hallelujah Chorus? I agree here, but see my earlier post on how Pagan visitors might view these "Saints". - Paul  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA20655; Thu, 10 Jun 93 21:13:26 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA26957; Thu, 10 Jun 93 22:13:16 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Thu, 10 Jun 93 22:13:22 EDT From: jjm@zycor.lgc.com (johnjmedway) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: SPIRIT MAGIC Date: Thu, 10 Jun 93 21:12:58 CDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <13D18DA7502@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> >> Subject: Re: SPIRIT MAGIC >> Date: Wed, 9 Jun 93 18:44:51 EDT >> Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu >> >> Spirit Magic: >> >> ... >> >> I may send this to the RQ Daily as well, now that I've written it. But >> first I'll give y'all a chance to stop me by telling me that it's a waste of >> bandwidth! Yes, definitely do that. (This probably belonged there, anyway...) I've not had a chance to read through the sorcery ideas of yours, but from the sounds of the comments, you got that pretty well right, too. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | john_medway@zycor.lgc.com | Landmark Graphics Corp | 512.292.2325 | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA23583; Thu, 10 Jun 93 23:21:26 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA28903; Fri, 11 Jun 93 00:21:23 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Fri, 11 Jun 93 0:21:29 EDT From: curtiss@netcom.com (Curtis Shenton) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: SORCERY and other COMMENTS Date: Thu, 10 Jun 93 21:21:43 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <13F3C061641@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> I've noticed one problem with the idea of limiting posts to as few as possible and providing convient headers. It's not so easy to come up with a header that let's people know what the psot is when you want to deal with several topics in the same post. Anyway on to RQIV stuff. First of all on the APP/CHA debate: I do think we need a way to measure how goodlooking a character is. Let's face it this does influence people and I think it's nice to know. It doesn't have to be an attribute though. As for CHA I hate it. It's too illdefined. Or at least all the definitions I've seen roll too many different elements into one big lump sum. WHy not just ditch CHA and the skills that go with it? If a PC wants to bargain why not let him roleplay? Of course when you're playing a game you don't want to roleplay every trip to the tinker when you're on an epic quest. So I think the skills should actually stay, they can be usefull. I'd like to see a better definition of CHA though. If it wasn't too general it might be usefull. Now on to Sorcery: One idea I have for geasa is that that can be used to maintain other people's spells. Let me explain. Maybe the Brithini do this, when a young man/woman comes into age he probably goes through somesort of ceremony. At that time he/she sacrifices a point of POW to establish a Presence and the Wizard casts immortality. But the young man/woman will maintain it, they swear a geas to never break the rules of their class. If they do the spell is lost since they don't know it to recast it and they now have a 1 Pow Presence hanging around like a black cloud. Something like this could also explain while the Mostali are immortal unless they break the rules. What do you guys think? Another idea I like is that the ordeal a wizard goes through is sort of a mini heroquest. His geasa/vows/whatever actually change him in some way. So a wizard could tie himself to darkness by swearing/accepting some geasa restricting him in the light. This makes a bit more sense under the sorcery=rune manipulation model of how things work but I think it could be an interesting idea to develop. -- Curtis Shenton curtiss@netcom.com internet & 4@3091 WWIVnet "At the GM's option, strategic nuclear weapons may be considered 'magical'"-From the CyberCthulhu rules in Interface  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA22425; Thu, 10 Jun 93 22:30:48 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA28094; Thu, 10 Jun 93 23:30:45 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Thu, 10 Jun 93 23:30:50 EDT From: "Loren J. Miller" To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: COMMENTS on Carl's Reply to Nick's Comments Date: 10 Jun 1993 23:27:01 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <13E641240F5@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Sorry for not putting this in a long message, but... Nick says that he's opposed "on principle" to Charisma. What is the principle? Someone else complained about diplomats wanting a bunch of skills rather than just CHA. I don't think this is true at all. My characters in RQ2, before Bargain skill was generally available, got by with some Oratory and a lot of CHA rolls, and they were by no means just stand up fighters. One of them was an Issaries priest by the end of it, and the lack of a large complex of bargaining and interaction skills didn't slow him down a bit. And then look at all the games that are supposed to be roleplaying intensive that you see out there on the market. Amber. How many skills and stats do you see? 4 stats. No skills, per se, other than the cosmic abilities expected of Amberites. Does that make it hard to play diplomatic characters? On the contrary, the simplistic rules/non-rules make it easy to bend characters as you want, rather than make them slaves to a skill list. Also, a player in my current campaign under the playtest rules wants to play a diplomat character. Unfortunately the current rules do not support such a concept. Everyone else has taken some communication skill or another, and everybody else is just as good as he is. The player is not glib or pushy, so his character gets overwhelmed by other characters, and he has no recourse in the game rules, for they make someone with 20 points in multiple comm skills equivalent to someone with 4 points in one of them. If CHA was available, then he would have boosted his CHA and those who didn't want to spend points on CHA would have left their CHA low and he would have an advantage. The current system doesn't have a way to differentiate between someone with 60% in oratory and someone with 60% oratory, 60% bargain, 60% etiquette, and all the rest. The multiplicity of poorly defined skills, which should not even be used in a properly run game, or so the roleplaying snobs tell us, discourage people from buying such skills for their character. Which ones are useful in what situations? Who knows. Anyway, I want to hear rational arguments against CHA if you have them, rather than just "I don't like it." Tell me how CHA ruined your RQ campaign and having APP and 6 Comm skills made it better. expectantly yours, Loren  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA23959; Thu, 10 Jun 93 23:44:16 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA29168; Fri, 11 Jun 93 00:44:15 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Fri, 11 Jun 93 0:44:18 EDT From: curtiss@netcom.com (Curtis Shenton) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: SORCERY, SPIRIT MAGIC Date: Thu, 10 Jun 93 21:44:23 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <13F9D1B6776@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> I know we want to avoid too much traffic on this list but there are too many points here I'd like to comment on for me to pass up. :) What can I say, the flesh is weak. > > Re: Pauls and Mikes new system > > The problem with making it too difficult to become a sorcerer is that > you'll have very few PC sorcerers. This is the problem with Warhammer > FRP, the magicians are gross but it takes an eternity to get any good. > As a result, there are a lot more NPC magicians than PC's. > > I would suggest reducing the number of separate skills a sorcerer needs > to know, to something like the Ars Magica Creo, Ignem style. Spells could > be trained up separately, and should be easier than learning the lores. I think Graeme is right that right now it looks to hard to generate Sorcerors. At the same time we have to make sure it's not too easy. But I think between learning lores, spells, and establishing a Presence a sorceror has plenty of things he needs to do to become powerfull. I think that it should be a bit easier to become a sorceror(assuming you are part of the right culture and have followed all the rules, I'm talking game mechanics) than to become a shaman or a priest. But starting sorcerors shouldn't be as powerfull as staring shaman and priests. They should have to spend lots of time reading ancient tomes, perforing starnge rituals, and speaking to forgotten spirits to accumulate power. > (This is a hint for Paul to publish his rune sorcery concept: the > westerners would divide their sorcery lores into runic areas; the other > cultures could do it differently.) Yes! The basic sorcery rules shoudl not be based on any one culture, but rather easily configurable to fit each different sorcery using group. Sorcery metarules instead of rules for Malikioni. > > > The "special effects" of Presence: Loren suggested some nice ideas, but > they all appeared fairly nasty (i.e hideous appearance, animals frightened). > I think these are a case for Pendragon-like personality traits: an adept > binds his twin to the physical world, unlike a shaman, and so his personality > becomes obvious in the real world. If the character is genuinely nasty, as > many independent sorcerers seem to be, then there should be hideous and > frightening effects. If he's saintly, there should be comforting, reassuring > effects. Of course, what might comfort fellow worshippers may frighten others: > the Dominican approach rather than the Franciscan... I like this alot. But we need guidelines for what establishes the effects. Maybe how the sorceror fares in the ordeal and how he tries to reshape himself and his presence? > > In short, I think the effects should be personal, rather than cultural. I think they should be both. The rules should allor for individual sorcerors to develop individually, after all powerfull sorcerors seem to be a group of unique people rather than one stereotype, but with lots of information about how each culture _expects_ a sorceror to develop. > > Someone (I forget who) said he thought that most sorcerers are fairly > twisted. I think this should be avoided, especially as part of the rules > system: ie adepts "crippling their fetch". This is a theistic or animistic > prejudice: adepts control their twin. They would say that shamans are > controlled by theirs, and are insane/possessed. I don't think the base > rules system should contain these slants. Again I agree. If we can't manage to make the rules unbiased then each group of magic rules should have the outlook of someone from that culture by way of background. So the rules for Presence should mention how this is the best way to handle magic, the rules for shaman should mention how the shamans powers are the best way to do magic, and the divine magic should mention how this the the best magic. Remember Greg keeps stressing that their is no "right" answer. All sorcerors shouldn't be neroitic, repressed basket cases no one likes. Though it's all right to establish cultural stereotypes. > > Re: Animistic spirit magic: though I posted my problems with the system > yesterday, I do prefer it to the current system as an explanation of how > spirit magic works. The problem with re-doing it for RQIV is that it isn't > broken, maybe not perfect, but not broken. What I would really like for > RQIV is more spirit magic spells: I think the list emphasizes combat spells > too much. I'd like this too. Maybe if the spirit magic spells weren't so optimized for combat it would "feel" more like animistic magic too me. > > Graeme. > > -- Curtis Shenton curtiss@netcom.com internet & 4@3091 WWIVnet "At the GM's option, strategic nuclear weapons may be considered 'magical'"-From the CyberCthulhu rules in Interface  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA23986; Thu, 10 Jun 93 23:45:34 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA29183; Fri, 11 Jun 93 00:45:35 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Fri, 11 Jun 93 0:45:36 EDT From: Dustin Tranberg To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: SKILLS: Bargain Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1993 21:45:22 -0700 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <13FA37E340F@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> About the Bargain skill: IMHO, sellers *will* occasionally take a loss, on individual sales, for many possible reasons: Needs fast cash / Needs fast space / Mistakenly bought items at higher than going market value / Item will spoil soon / Trying to "score points" with sexually attractive buyer / Wants to avoid the tax levied next week on merchandise / Etc. etc. Dustin  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA04515; Fri, 11 Jun 93 10:04:14 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA11099; Fri, 11 Jun 93 11:04:11 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Fri, 11 Jun 93 11:04:13 EDT From: burt@ptltd.com (Burton Choinski) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: COMMENTS -- Magic, Sorcery Date: Fri, 11 Jun 93 11:00:19 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <149F2001882@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Sheesh. I go away for a day and get mail-bombed. Good thing I like it. :) ---------------------------------------- Paul R. Notes: (on magic) | Spirit Magic: | 2. Go back to RQ3 for Focussed on self, Unfocussed on others. Add in | things like "Unfocussed on weapon in hand" for Bladesharp. | | Now invent a Focussing skill to cast magic. This is a standard Magic | skill and can improve through experience. I think back in the days I ran a very short RQ3 game, I had a "Cast Spirit Magic" skill that started at 25% and improved from there. I think adding this to RQ4, rather then relying on POWx5, is the way to go. But, looking at later comments, this should be called "Spirit Harmony" (see later in this post) | This works great in low-magic campaigns. Interpret things like Fanaticism | as just willing yourself to fight fanatically: spend a point of willpower | (MP) and hack away! Strength is berserk strength, Coordination is paying | extra attention (at the cost of willpower = MP) to what you're doing, etc. I like this idea, but like the next one even better. | 3. When RQ3 first added spell spirits we thought they were a dopey | mechanic. After reading THE WAY OF THE SHAMAN and some other such | books, I don't think they went far enough. Primitive peoples pick up | "helper spirits" all the time. | So another model is instead of saying "I beat up the spirit and force it | to teach me its spell that it can't even cast itself," say instead: | "I acquire a new spirit buddy who'll do his trick for me." Thus you get Actually, I LIKE this even better. And it even fits the mechanic where you have to "release" spirits in order to make room for others (to get a new spell, or to get a "bigger" one.) | a Bladesharp spirit - it doesn't cast a spell, it IS the spell. It can | sit on a sword and help it fight. You have to feed it some mana, of | course, or it won't do it's trick. You can acquire several spirits of the | same type. Actually, since to learn a Heal 4 requires you to give a beating to a much more powerful spirit, rather then just another Heal 1 spirit, I think the actual effect is to shoo away the smaller spirit in favor of the larger one, rather then maintain a flock of tiny ones. | If you acquire spirits of opposing types (Fireblade and | Darkwall) you may have to break up catfights once in a while and one | or both of them may run off and sulk. The shaman makes you a little | house for the spirit (Focus, like an oppossum rib cage) or you find it | on a visionquest. Another good reason. "The key, my young apprentice," said Old Greyfoot, "Is to never send your spirit of Blazing spear into battle with that of the Shadow Block. In the distant past, before the age of man, these two tribes had bad blood between them, and have to this day maintained that animosity. Send them both, and you get nothing from either." | I'd probably use this model in a Hsunchen campaign, it fits much better | with an animistic view of the world. I may use this with ALL spirit magics. Cult spirit spells are bits of one's god come down to aid you (after you have proved yourself to it...while you might have to fight a Humact Bladesharp Spirit, an Issiares (sp?) might have to haggle a deal with his (Use the same mechanics, but substitute "Bargain" for "Spirit Combat"). And, if you are bad, said cult spirit might up and leave you. :) "Did you hear about Assar the trader?" "No. What happened?" "His true tougue spirit left him during a big deal...he was ruined." "Wow! How come?" "The way I heard it, he offered the other guy a refund..." Shaman justification -- you have to spend time to prove yourself to him...he won't help those who will simply "enslave" the spirits. And it supports the fact that True Sword != True Spear cast on a sword. Said spirit will look at you funny, take your mana, and say "Sorry boss, not my department." And Sorcerers, who don't believe in such primitive stuff, don't get any. Sounds logical to me. ---------------------------------------- Nick Brooke notes on Paul's sorcery | I am *delighted* by Paul's suggestion that Wizards create an "artificial | Fetch" made up of suppressed desires, self-denial and the like. It opens | up a new moral dimension in the sorcery system, as we now have the | groundwork for a mechanism for penalising characters who act against the | rigid moral tenets of their religion (whatever those may be) -- their | "Presence" would start to diminish (as well it might!). Old Wizard Marlet | would be delighted! Well, rethinking it out I guess I like the idea. People have suggested names for the object, based on the culture. Loskalmi have Guardians, Dwarves have "Batteries", etc. And having the Presense locked into an object, stashed in an animal (familiar) or floating free is a matter of personal taste and culture. You know that Parrot in "Aladdin" was a familiar. With that attitude, he must have about 25 POW stashed in there. :) | I'm not sure that we need to call the "anti-Fetch's" POW characteristic by | any special name (after all, Shamans get by with "Fetch POW"): what we need | is a name for this Spiritual Thing that Wizards have but the rest of us | don't. "Presence" doesn't ring any bells for me. Nor do the obvious | "spiritual" things -- "Genius", "Daimon", "Guardian Angel", etc. Ideas, | anyone? A possible "generic" term for the rules (for common reference) might be "Aura". | Apart from those, I have no conceptual problems with this (yet?), which is | more than can be said for any other proposed Sorcery system I have seen. | It has flavour! It has a social dimension!! It might even work!!! And a social dimension is needed for the Loskalmi society to work. I agree. If Presense or Aura or whatever is used to maintain spells for sorcerers (I think "Adept" is the best term, "Sorcerer" being the generic term for Adepts and Apprentices), this level should fluctuate with his duties and actions w/regards to the Invisible God and his/her sect. ---------------------------------------- Carl Fink on Nick's comments | >You keep supplying rules allowing players to roll their initial | >culture, magical background, profession. Nobody sane would use | >these; anybody insane enough would create their own. I'd prefer | >my rule set not to include this generic, soulless twaddle. | | Nick, you seem to be using "nobody sane" a bit loosely. I know | lots of people who like to roll randomly and generate characters | based on the rolls - it's a challenge. That's why we have | several ways to do it, so people don't have to use methods they | don't like. Does the physical presence of a rule you don't use | in the book bother you that much? I agree with Carl. They have a use. But I think that they have more use as a seperate pamphlet. That way the GM could refer to it for quick background on some nameless NPC, rather then crack the main book. But if such a task is more expense then the ease gained, put it in. Oh, and a secondary question on format. What is the format going to be like? 2-column per page? 2-column with a thin sidebar for optional rules? Have you seen Powers & Perils books? I liked their scheme of noting optional rules. Grey box was used with general use tables, pink for optional rules, red for seriously optional rules. | >I would like to abolish them, and characteristic training in | >general, and go the Pendragon way.... | | We're trying to maintain continuity with RQ-past and -present, | which would make us very reluctant to simply discard POW gain | rolls. I have no problem with POW rolls, as long as you keep them to reasonable rates of use. | What do people think of adding Stormbringer-style | characteristic increases? (If you "stress" any stat, you roll | 2D6. On a 7, the stat increases, on a 2, it decreases.) Yuck. By stress, you mean where a fumble or Critical were made on a stat roll? I'm not sure if I'd like this. | >...The random table is boring, colourless, and will only be used | >by idiots; why should we help them? | | Because we want their money. Sometimes having random tables is useful for adventure hooks. In Powers & Perils one can roll up military treasure, and it had tables like you would not believe for all sorts of junk (perhaps some RQ4 team member can peruse a copy of P&P book 4 from Avalon Hill...some ideas in there look pretty good). Anyways, military treasure has a chance of having some magic. One time, the group were picking over the gain from some creature's cave (this type of creature was treasure relevant). One of the objects was a flag/banner, with magic on it. Argument ensued on the value of it. From that time on, if they were looking over the potential rewards of a looting mission, and they felt they would get little out of it, there would always be at least some comment on there probably being nothing but "Battle Flags". "Battle Flag" also came to be a generic comment when a worthless item was found. | >...You should also note that spell effects vary as well as the | >names. I'm a Humakti, and have piously learned Swordsharp 4. | >Cast on a spear, this spell will have exactly NO effect: it | >isn't "Bladesharp by another name", but a different, distinct | >spell. Get people used to thinking like this and we'll have a |>lot more realism and fun in our games. | | I'm not so sure we want to dramatically weaken Spirit Magic | this way. (I.e if you learn Slay Pest, you can't hurt humans or | elves.) BTW, "realism"? About Glorantha? One might compromise -- A Spear is a weapon, so you might get half effect out of it -- just like with Heal you only get half effect on another species. | I represent a minority opinion that hates the "limited number of rolls" | system, and I also had no problem with check frenzy. Okay, one problem, | but I squelched it fairly quickly. I don't see any skill-check frenzy, or at least, I haven't put them in the position to make it cost effective. Training Frenzy is another matter. If the group is dorking around a town for half a week while waiting for the next barge to their destination, out come the training requests. I make sure they pay their room & board (Actually, they decide on how they want to live (like a duke, like a commoner, etc, and pay that way) and give them their training points available. -- Burton  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA05233; Fri, 11 Jun 93 10:19:46 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA11798; Fri, 11 Jun 93 11:19:36 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Fri, 11 Jun 93 11:19:38 EDT From: mabeyke@batman.b11.ingr.com (boris) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: SORCERY, PERSONALITY TRAITS Date: Fri, 11 Jun 93 10:18:58 CDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <14A342A3AE6@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Some quick comments (I hope), vvvvvv Graeme wrote: > A general comment: I had 250k of text sent from both the RQ mailing >lists yesterday (and they said it was a dead system...). But with a *fanatically* loyal following ;-) >Re: Pauls and Mikes new system > I would suggest reducing the number of separate skills a sorcerer needs >to know, to something like the Ars Magica Creo, Ignem style. Spells could >be trained up separately, and should be easier than learning the lores. Or perhaps base the opening skill level on the appropriate lores when the spell is learned. Could use the same mechanic as complementary skills, and have the skill with each spell learned start at (magic bonus + (Lore 1 skill)/20 + (Lore 2 skill)/20)% - difficulty mod The difficulty modifier would vary as necessary for different spells. One of the problems with RQ3 is all sorcery spells were equally easy to learn. I could see some arcane and powerful spells (such as Time in yesterday's (6/10) RQ Daily) having a modifier of -50 to -100 (or more), requiring lore skills monstrously high to learn. But since Zzzabur (is that too many z's?) is the only one who has learned it, and his lores are likely around 500-1000%, that's copacetic. This will have two (related) desired effects. One, the more a magus knows about an arcane subject, the more capable he is at spells dealing with it. Two, it will tend to foster specialization among magi, as they would have a choice of either learning spells they have the appropriate lores for at moderate levels or learning spells they don't have lores for at low levels. And if the difficulty modifier is high, it will take them many times longer (taking 50 hours and adding a d6 to their negagive skill each time) to learn spells without the appropriate lores. Or perhaps rule that a magus must have non-zero skill with all lores a spell is based upon, and cannot learn any spell unless their starting skill would be positive. > (This is a hint for Paul to publish his rune sorcery concept: the >westerners would divide their sorcery lores into runic areas; the other >cultures could do it differently.) The Kralori, for example, could base it on the powers of various draconic or celetial beings, or on the various ki channels in the body, or maybe tantric positions? Dwarfs might be based on the various dwarfin races, and so Irondwarf lore would help with combat and weaponsmithing spells. > The "special effects" of Presence: Loren suggested some nice ideas, but >they all appeared fairly nasty (i.e hideous appearance, animals frightened). >I think these are a case for Pendragon-like personality traits: an adept >binds his twin to the physical world, unlike a shaman, and so his personality ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >becomes obvious in the real world. If the character is genuinely nasty, as >many independent sorcerers seem to be, then there should be hideous and >frightening effects. If he's saintly, there should be comforting, reassuring >effects. Of course, what might comfort fellow worshippers may frighten others: >the Dominican approach rather than the Franciscan... I hadn't thought of this, but it has good effects. Since the twin is in the real world, the adept would not be able to see on the spirit plane, and would lack the shaman's Second Sight. However, he would have a Mystic Vision-like ability (though much less powerful than RQ3's MV, please). The shaman says the adept has "blinded" his fetch, but that may just refer to it's inability to view the spirit plane. I also *love* the adept's hidden nature being visible to all. Might make it easy for the inquisition (Nobody expects the Loskalmic Inquisition!) > I don't think Vows should be as severe as Geasa either. Certainly the >earthly monotheist parallels have forgiveness for broken vows. From what >I've read of Irish myth, the breaking of a Geas usually preceeded one's >death by no more than a week. To balance this, a Vow should get you less >than a Geas does; perhaps an increased chance of a POW gain while you >keep to the Vow? I thought the idea was that as each point of POW was given to your twin, some vow or quirk had to be be part of it (perhaps all with the same vow, perhaps not), and that to use that POW, you had to maintain the vow. So it doesn't "get you" anything, other than ability to use your twin. Is this incorrect? ----- (*) ZZ [] (.) @ e K| o8- |> oK <>< )o 3 8 <| Fools rush in where the Storm Bulls are holding a kegger. Pavic proverb. Boris |><| +- (| >- .: K * =|= <- (O) ( ) (o) (|) X-  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA26809; Fri, 11 Jun 93 02:53:38 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01284; Fri, 11 Jun 93 03:53:37 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Fri, 11 Jun 93 3:53:41 EDT From: apardon@vub.ac.be (Antoon Pardon) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: SKILLS: How many? Which ones? Date: Fri, 11 Jun 93 9:51:08 MDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <142C5DC5B68@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> I am not so long on this list but it seems that a number of people find that there are too many skills in RQIV. I like having many skills but I find that they are handled too seperatly. My idea is to put the skills in categories and let people train all skills in a category at the same time. Whith the possibily to specialize in one or two skill at the costs of some other skills in the category. For example: category persuade. skills: Bargain, Debate, Fast talk, Oratory. One could now train in persuade which would give each skill some percentage. Specializing in Bargain at the cost of Orartory would mean that Bargain would have a bonus for bargain and a malus for orartory. Comments please. -- ======================================================================== Antoon Pardon Brussels Free University Computing Centre 02/650.37.16 ========================================================================  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA09569; Fri, 11 Jun 93 11:45:29 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA15594; Fri, 11 Jun 93 12:45:12 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Fri, 11 Jun 93 12:45:30 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: SORCERY: Libidoes in Bondage! + SPIRIT MAGIC at the end Date: Fri, 11 Jun 93 12:45:18 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <14BA1DD6B62@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Nick writes: >We know that the >Rokari Wizards are not celibate. Errata: I should perhaps have said 'at least some Rokari Wizards (at least) do Vow celibacy, ' Remember the culture section about "Have they never enjoyed the flesh of a woman? Of course not, and their vows turn them into shrill-voiced hypocrites railing against all pleasures," or words to that effect. The _caste_ is hereditary, but perhaps only some children of the caste gain the Higher Magic and take vows of chastity. (Celibacy = no marriage, Chastity = no sex.) Maybe they have children beforehand or something. For Carmania, we were thinking that upper class families often have a distribution like: First Son = Heir Second Son is given to the Wizards. Third Son goes to the army, etc. Poor commoners sometimes give children to the Wizards as well, most of these become servants bbut some talented ones mnay get trained in sorcery ( or become Priests of Wizard class cults.) Oh, maybe when you bind your 'crippled Fetch' to an object and take on Vows, you get a multiplier (like x2) for effective Presence. Thus someone with 5 points of Power Invested in a Staff would have as a default 5 Points of Presence but with 5 points of Vows he can double that to 10. This quantifies the apparent Gloranthan rule that you can trade freedom for power. With this mechanic you could use Curtis' table of how much various sample Vows might be worth, and as Wizard's power grows they would wind up taking on more vows, until finally the world's greatest magi have virtually no freedom. For example, the world's greatest Fire/Sky mage, Ehilm, might take a Vow to travel a fixed path that repeats in a yearly cycle. - Paul Reply to Graeme: > I would suggest reducing the number of separate skills a sorcerer needs >to know, to something like the Ars Magica Creo, Ignem style. We had thought about this, spells would become "favorite recipes" and then you use your magic skills (possibly Rune based) to cast them. Analogy: Should we use separate skills for Cherries Flambe and Jugged Hare or a Cooking Skill with the cooks acquiring recipes? Sadly I am told that using separate Spell skills comes from Greg and is not open to change. (As I understand it.) Range always bothered me less than duration. > The "special effects" of Presence: [various good stuff] >Of course, what might comfort fellow worshippers may frighten others Exactly. Examples: a Kralorelan holy mystical sorceror, revered by his local peasants, has a holy aura to them but may appear to be a sinister inscrutable Oriental magician with an aura that is simply alien to a visiting Lunar caravan boss. Is the sinister solid black shadow of an Arkat Kingtroll sorceror frightening or holy? Depends on whether you're a human or a troll. > ...: ie adepts "crippling their fetch". This is a theistic or animistic >prejudice: adepts control their twin. They would say that shamans are >controlled by theirs, and are insane/possessed. I don't think the base >rules system should contain these slants. Exactly right. I am a bit prejudiced toward the shamanic view BUT I will try to keep it out of the system. The sorceror indeed thinks that the shaman's so-called fetch is just the shaman's magic running out of control, and that the shaman is over the bend. Sorcerors who screw up their Awakening and wind up with a fetch are considered to have gone crazy. On Earth we have people who stand around muttering on city street corners and are regarded as insane; in a primitive culture they might be holy men. I've seen some papers about this, psychologists think a lot of shamans have conditions thought of as disorders in the Western world. (Of course there is a lot of variation across cultures.) The standard RQ releases for the Dragon Pass area should have stuff purportedly from Gloranthan sources slanted against sorcerors, but we should try to keep it out of the base system. >Animistic spirit magic I talked to Oliveer Jovanovic last night. He liked the model where the spirit magician has learned to communicate with the spirits of things. This option can use the familiar mechanics. It also changes the way spells are grouped together. Examples: Bladesharp. You have learned to commune with the spirits of sharp objects. You can bribe them to work harder for you. This now naturally goes with Dullblade: you can learn also to bribe them to lay off on you. Healing: Everyone has a fetch, yours is just asleep, in a dazed dream like the spirit of a spear. You can get it to Heal your body by bribing it, just like you can bribe your spear to work harder. Heal now is logically grouped with Strength, Coordination, etc. (Disrupt might fall in here also, bribing opponent's fetch, or it could go elsewhere...) Fire Spirits: You can wake them up (Ignite), put them to sleep (Extinguish), or fan them into a burning rage (Fireblade). Note that this grouping often gives animists a set of spells that cultists would consider incompatible, such as Ignite and Extinguish. - Paul P.S. How about but redefining Protection so that it stacks with armor like armor, i.e. only half the lower protection counts. I have always thought of Protection as something primitives do to make arrows bounce off their skin, anyway. Protection should _really_ be for them. Also, the Lunar soldier who is relying on his armor just can't be believing in his Protection as much as the barbarian with no armor who is trusting in his god-given (ie. Orlanth sent a Spellteaching spirit) magic to Protect him. The armored Lunar is putting a little extra whammy on top of his armor, the Orlanthi is really relying on the spell. Second argument: Protection 2 is equivalent to sole leather. A lance point that can blow through a steel breastplate should hardly notice it anyway, should only count as one point. Third argument: The current description makes Prot. 4 MORE valuable to the armored guy than the skyclad warrior. If I have 8 point chain +padding, I fear two things: critical hits and being nickel and dimed to death. With Protection the average damage per round is cut down a LOT as most hits would only be getting one or two points past armor anyway. Thus even Prot. 1 makes a big difference to how long the heavily armored guy can last, whereas it's hardly worth casting for the primitive. This should be evened up, or even fo in the Primitive's favor. If you want to keep the same game balance as RQ 4 making Protection up to 6 more available is a possibility. This would add only 3 points to the heavily armored warrior but make those howling unarmored barbarian charges a lot more plausible.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA23040; Thu, 10 Jun 93 23:03:17 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA28587; Fri, 11 Jun 93 00:03:15 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Fri, 11 Jun 93 0:03:20 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: SORCERY, SPIRIT MAGIC, PERSONALITY TRAITS Date: Fri, 11 Jun 93 14:02:21 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <13EEEA263A8@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> A general comment: I had 250k of text sent from both the RQ mailing lists yesterday (and they said it was a dead system...). Re: Pauls and Mikes new system The problem with making it too difficult to become a sorcerer is that you'll have very few PC sorcerers. This is the problem with Warhammer FRP, the magicians are gross but it takes an eternity to get any good. As a result, there are a lot more NPC magicians than PC's. I would suggest reducing the number of separate skills a sorcerer needs to know, to something like the Ars Magica Creo, Ignem style. Spells could be trained up separately, and should be easier than learning the lores. (This is a hint for Paul to publish his rune sorcery concept: the westerners would divide their sorcery lores into runic areas; the other cultures could do it differently.) Range: this takes P&M's sorcery even further from RQIII but I think the range rules look a little out of place now. I think a sytem purely based on sympathetic targetting (as a skill mod, since intensity is now limited by skill) would be more in place. This would also vary by culture too, but completely different write-ups for cultures has been part of the cults since the beginning. The "special effects" of Presence: Loren suggested some nice ideas, but they all appeared fairly nasty (i.e hideous appearance, animals frightened). I think these are a case for Pendragon-like personality traits: an adept binds his twin to the physical world, unlike a shaman, and so his personality becomes obvious in the real world. If the character is genuinely nasty, as many independent sorcerers seem to be, then there should be hideous and frightening effects. If he's saintly, there should be comforting, reassuring effects. Of course, what might comfort fellow worshippers may frighten others: the Dominican approach rather than the Franciscan... In short, I think the effects should be personal, rather than cultural. Someone (I forget who) said he thought that most sorcerers are fairly twisted. I think this should be avoided, especially as part of the rules system: ie adepts "crippling their fetch". This is a theistic or animistic prejudice: adepts control their twin. They would say that shamans are controlled by theirs, and are insane/possessed. I don't think the base rules system should contain these slants. One problem with this is that Glorantha seems to be slanted against the sorcerers. Whether this is a product of the theistic bias of RQI & II, or Greg's dislike of authoritarian churches, I'm not sure. Re: Animistic spirit magic: though I posted my problems with the system yesterday, I do prefer it to the current system as an explanation of how spirit magic works. The problem with re-doing it for RQIV is that it isn't broken, maybe not perfect, but not broken. What I would really like for RQIV is more spirit magic spells: I think the list emphasizes combat spells too much. Graeme.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA19257; Fri, 11 Jun 93 15:46:08 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25196; Fri, 11 Jun 93 16:46:01 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Fri, 11 Jun 93 16:46:08 EDT From: curtiss@netcom.com (Curtis Shenton) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: DIVINE MAGIC Date: Fri, 11 Jun 93 13:46:18 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <14FA53424BB@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> I'd just like to say I support the idea of including the Rune Power idea as an optional rule. Right now the mechanics remind me of nothing less than AD&D with disposable magic spell feel. "Well I'm going to the Orlanth temple and I'm going to pick up two teleport greanges and one flight grenade." I think the idea of Rune Power where you can ask the god for any spell has a better feel. With this system if two groups want to swear an Oath spell the Humakt initaite can step in and cast oath if he has to(assuing he's already sacrificed some pow) I think divine spells should enable mortals to act as symbolic representitives of the gods and being able to call on any of the gods pwoers available to you when they are needed seems more in line with this. A Storm Bull worshipper shouldn't have to sit down and plan what spells he's going to need ahead of time. If play balance is an option I have two suggestions. One is that initiates would have to sacrifice two pow for every one point of spell they could ask for. But considering that it'll be one use anyway I don't think this is needed. My other suggestion is that the first spell asked for each day is granted. But then everytime you ask for another spell you have to roll a die(1d10 for initiates and 1d100 for priests) if you roll under the number of points you've already cast that's it for the day. You'll have to fall back on DI if you need your god to save you. This can be explained any number of ways, the god is annoyed witht he frequent requests, it's a function of the Compromise, the god is busy, etc. The other thing I liek about this is that it would add bit of similarity to priests and the other two magic types. Just like a shaman makes his otherself awaken as a fetch on the spirit plane and feeds it pow and a sorceror binds his otherself to the real world and gives it pow a priest gives his otherself to his god and stores his pow that way, as a pool to be drawn on later. Comments? -- Curtis Shenton curtiss@netcom.com internet & 4@3091 WWIVnet "At the GM's option, strategic nuclear weapons may be considered 'magical'"-From the CyberCthulhu rules in Interface  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA21465; Fri, 11 Jun 93 16:33:24 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA26725; Fri, 11 Jun 93 17:33:21 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Fri, 11 Jun 93 17:33:27 EDT From: "Loren Miller" To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: DIVINE MAGIC Date: 11 Jun 93 17:31:05 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <1506FD1407B@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Curtis writes: >I'd just like to say I support the idea of including the Rune Power idea >as an optional rule. The problem is that as Greg has said before the Rune Power rules break the cosmic compromise. Orlanth does not invoke a divine effect when a priest casts cloud call, such would be cheating. Divine intervention is such cheating. That's why it has such stringent rules, and can't affect anyone else. That's also why it is so risky to the one praying. The reason that divine intervention is so expensive for the mortal involved is that the divinity risks being caught and damaged by the compromise. The way divine magic works is that the deity gives a boon to the worshipper, and the worshipper uses a certain amount of POW to store the boon. With an initiate the POW that stores the boon is tied to the boon. It goes away when the boon is used. With a priest the POW that holds the boon sticks to the priest and can be recharged with the same boon upon further prayer. Why is there a difference? Something Curtis says later gave me an idea. > The other thing I liek about this is that it would add bit of >similarity to priests and the other two magic types. Just like a shaman >makes his otherself awaken as a fetch on the spirit plane and feeds it >pow and a sorceror binds his otherself to the real world and gives it >pow a priest gives his otherself to his god and stores his pow that way, >as a pool to be drawn on later. Now this is an important point. It allows me to see a sensible way to explain the divine magic rules. When the divine magic user becomes initiated he undergoes an ritual that begins to separate his otherworldly self, the part of him that would become the fetch of a shaman or the twin of a magus, from him, and begins to form his "soul." (just picked the name. try another if you don't like it.) The initiate prays to and receives boon powers from his divinity, powers that are stored in the soul, along with the POW that was committed to support them. If he wants to he can loose those divine powers, permanently weakening his soul. If he holds on to them then after his soul gets to 10 POW he may be initiated to acolyte or priest rank, which means the soul is no longer weakened by using divine boons. Until then the initiate is deemed to be ready to possess the boons, but unready to use them. This period is a test. After initiation to acolyte or priest status, divine boons loosed from the soul may be regained through prayer. The soul can be thought of conceptually as a personal god, connected to and synchronous with the initiate or priest, existing on a personal godplane rather than the mundane or spirit or god plane. This also explains why rune magic cast on the hero plane or in the god plane is used permanently. The hold of the boon on its piece of the soul is stronger than the soul's connection to the priest. This explanation is also consistent with the reluctance of real world religious instructors to teach miraculous abilities to their students and their frequent recommendations that people should not, at peril of their soul, use magic. It shrinks the soul. Only very experienced people should attempt to use those powers, for they are dangerous. This explanation works for some divine magic users, but most if not all temples teach spirit magic to worshippers. Why isn't spirit magic also banned? Besides the game balance issue, I think that if the personal and minor nature of spirit magic is emphasized then we could see a clear path to allowing people to use minor tricks, and even instructing them in their use, while discouraging them from using major powers. I think the chi analog is a good one. I think this explanation is consistent with all the facts we have about divine magic on glorantha. It also matches a lot of the real world facts. We might want to change the name of the priest's pseudo-fetch from soul to something else, but... Should we run it by Greg and include it in the rules? -- +++++++++++++++++++++++23 Loren Miller LOREN@wmkt.wharton.upenn.edu Into the flood again, same old trip it was back when  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA25759; Fri, 11 Jun 93 01:32:05 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA00601; Fri, 11 Jun 93 02:31:55 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Fri, 11 Jun 93 2:32:02 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: SORCERY: Libidoes in Bondage! Date: Fri, 11 Jun 93 16:31:09 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <14169107007@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> > A quick but vital point: > > Let's not overdo the sexual aspect of libido binding. We know that the > Rokari Wizards are not celibate. While they stress marital chastity, a > hereditary priesthood advocating total celibacy is on a hiding to > nowhere... > Yes, that's if they are a hereditary priesthood. Since the Rokari are the closest to medieval Christianity of any of the Malkionists, I think their priests have a similar origin: younger sons of the nobility for the ranking priests, sons of knights for the rest. I don't think their religion is an exact copy of the Brithini; after all they outlaw tapping. The "What My Father Told Me" says clearly that their wizard is celibate, and implies that the others are as well. Of course, this may be due to them all taking Vows... Does anyone know much about the Zoroastrians? I recall hearing that they are monotheists with a hereditary priesthood. Another interesting apsect is that their God (Ahura Mazda?) is evenly matched with their devil (Ahriman). All things that could be used as part of a non-Christian Malkionist theology. But I really think the sexual aspect shouldn't be part of the core rules: it imposes Gloranthan thinking on any other worlds GM's create. The shrill, celibate wizard comment does not seem to unbiased. I think that celibacy should certainly be a Vow, though. I also don't like the roleplaying limitations either. A magus (I agree with Loren, a better term than sorcerer) must have a magical view of the world, just like shamans and priests, but I don't think it must be based on sexual repression. > I like the idea of sectarian lists of Vows (*not* called Geasa -- that's > barbaric!) to distinguish between different types of Wizard. Some vows you I don't think Vows should be as severe as Geasa either. Certainly the earthly monotheist parallels have forgiveness for broken vows. From what I've read of Irish myth, the breaking of a Geas usually preceeded one's death by no more than a week. To balance this, a Vow should get you less than a Geas does; perhaps an increased chance of a POW gain while you keep to the Vow? > Nick > Graeme.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA22950; Fri, 11 Jun 93 17:14:51 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA27882; Fri, 11 Jun 93 18:14:46 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Fri, 11 Jun 93 18:14:51 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: DIVINE MAGIC Date: Fri, 11 Jun 93 18:13:32 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <151207802B6@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Loren's explanation is good and matches the way Divine magic works. I think that it may be true BUT that most Initiates think that their personal Deity is the One True Deity, this is also in some sense true. I'm not sure if the rulebook is the right place for such a "true" explanation, instead explain the mechanics and what some sample cultures believe. Also, I think that the deities do exist in some abstract sense as sentient concentrations of mana with information imprinted on them. When a priest or initiate sacrifices POW for Mana I think that he is building up a link to the deity, and that the "soul" of the priest extruded from his "spirit", while still attached to the priest, is also tied into this power complex, the "real" deity. The deity can consume the POW in this soul under certain conditions. Didn't Steve Maurer have some rules on Word Pacts and Soul Pacts? I think that Initiation is a soul pact with the deity and the otherworld self of the priest gets mixed in with that of the deity. This can be viewed as a big spirit eating part of your spirit and slowly digesting it (shamans) or an uplifting experience of Mystic Oneness with the Godhead. (Priests). Brithini might think of a pagan God as a mana complex maintained by the worshippers, essentially a long-running spell maintained by the Presence of all the Initiates. Even without worship such a power complex would take some time to run down. - Paul P.S> More this weekend but I have to go now...  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA23276; Fri, 11 Jun 93 17:25:36 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA28307; Fri, 11 Jun 93 18:25:33 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Fri, 11 Jun 93 18:25:38 EDT From: JOVANOVIC@CUCCFA.CCC.COLUMBIA.EDU To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: COMMENTS ON COMMENTS Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1993 18:26:30 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <1514D904C8E@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Nick, David, Loren, Paul, et. al. Thanks again for all the comments - I wanted to suggest a few ideas based on some of these comments, and see what people think of them. Fire away... DAMAGE BONUS There is an error in that table on the far end. In any case, I think that if we're going to go to the trouble of changing damage bonus (something that would interfere with the use of published RQIII stats), a straight addition may be the way to go - a number of people have suggested a few various ways of doing this, and it has a number of advantages over dice - faster to use, simpler and smoother. An example: 1-5 -4 6-10 -3 11-25 -2 16-20 -1 21-25 0 26-30 +1 31-35 +2 36-40 +3 41-45 +4 46-50 +5 Each +5 add 1 (This works out to 3.2 points of damage per 16 points of STR or SIZ, fairly close to the RQIII value of 3.5 points of damage per 16 points of STR and SIZ. Nick Brooke suggested something very similar, but with jumps every 4 points, working out to 4 points of damage per 16 points of STR or SIZ. This table, with jumps every 5 points, seemed even simpler. Nick?) STRIKE RANKS I noticed that the modified Harris combined Melee SR table had yet another problem - very small and clumsy creatures wouldn't have enough SR to land a blow in the course of a melee round. Another correction should make it work: DEX Missile/Spell SR 1-9 4 10-14 3 15-19 2 20+ 1 DEX + SIZ Melee SR (count only the first 20 points of each) 02-14 7 15-19 6 20-24 5 25-29 4 30-34 3 35-39 2 40 1 SKILL CATEGORY MODIFIERS Nick, I'm actually very much in agreement with you when you suggest using POW in as few modifiers as possible - it changes constantly, which makes it an incredible pain to refigure skills when you sacrifice for a point of Divine Magic or enchant something or whatnot. You can tell people not to change skills when their modifiers change post character generation, but this is counter intuitive - where I've seen people try to implement this rule, it has generally been discarded by the majority as making no sense. POW is already incredibly valuable in spell casting, enchantment, magic resistance, spell range, cult progression, luck rolls and spirit combat. I don't think it would hurt to drop it from the modifiers. I'd like to suggest the following changes: 1) Drop POW from modifiers. Refiguring skills would become much rarer. 2) Recalculate modifiers so that they balance more equally. It makes little sense to me that an entire category of skills should be harder or easier because it has more or less positive modifiers attached. In RQIII, Stealth, Knowledge and Agility skill start at far lower levels and progress more slowly by experience than do Manipulation, Magic, Perception or Communication skills because of the number of positive modifiers they have. I would suggest that the categories each have the equivelant of two positive modifiers - a negative modifier such as SIZ is OK, since it simply says that you must be small to gain the same benefits as compared to another modifier. 3) Simplify the calculation of the modifiers themselves. This is what it would look like: Agility Skills Category Modifier STR + DEX - SIZ - 10 Communication Skills Category Modifier INT + APP - 20 Magic Skills Category Modifier INT + DEX - 20 Manipulation Skills Category Modifier STR/2 + INT/2 + DEX - 20 Perception Skills Category Modifier INT + CON - 20 Reasoning Skills Category Modifier INTx2 - 20 (A character with a 15 in every stat would have a +10 modifier in everything but Agility, which would be +5. If the character had a 10 SIZ and 15 in every other stat, all the characters modifiers would be +10. Reasoning is just another name for Judgement skills, from the earlier suggestion to drop the Stealth Skills Category Modifier and add Reasoning (can be increased by experience), contrasting with Knowledge (cannot be increase by experience)). PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE Many helpful comments here by a number of people - the next version should be much improved by them. SKILL VS. SKILL David, I think we discussed something very much like what you suggest (subtract skills from each other, divide difference by two, add to 50 and roll) but the opinion at that time was that this was more complex than dividing each skill by 10 and comparing on the resistance table (reducing it to the same mechanic used by an MP vs. MP struggle). The method you suggest does away with the possibility of a rounding error, but requires more manipulation (subtract, divide, then add to 50). I'm not sure if this slight increase in accuracy is worth the slight increase in complexity. I'd be interested in hearing what people think, though. TRAINING (CHARACTERISTICS AND OTHERWISE) Nick, David, thanks for the feedback. Nick, you're correct, this system is very training heavy, but so were RQ2 and RQIII. Frankly, I think the best fix for this would be to get away from the idea of training individual skills and characteristics for huge lengths of time, which makes little sense, realistically speaking. People do train and research many of these skills and characteristics, but generally simultaneously. I'm working on something that tries to approach the situation from the idea of how a character spends his or her time over a period of time (perhaps with a minimum interval of a week). More to come on this. FATIGUE The chance of fumbling increasing, even dramatically, was exactly our intent. From my sparring experience, it is also a very good approximation of what happens when you get tired - you make sloppy mistakes which you would never make when rested, and begin seeing openings that you can't take advantage of due to your fatigue. Experienced fighters try to pace themselves so that they do not get tired - please note that with the RQIV rules, it only takes two melee rounds of dodging or parrying, or a single round of resting to recover fatigue - which strikes me as an excellant simulation of what happens when people spar. We also thought it would be a lot more dramatic - a character that gets tired really has to think about whether it is worth pressing the attack, or whether they should try to catch their breath by going on the defensive for a bit. David, how long do your fights run in rounds, typically? This may be a hidden variable. At least one playtester suggested shifting the rolls to every 10 melee rounds, which struck me as far too long an interval, simply because most RQ battles seem to be over in 10 to 15 melee rounds, but they seemed to regularly go 20 or so rounds. SPECIAL COMBAT OPTIONS David, good suggestion regarding Guard and Weave. I also like your idea of lumping Jumping Kick in with special combat options. We can always adjust the training times, based on feedback, if people want them easier to learn. They needed to be discussed in terms of cultural availability as well, as Nick suggests. GRAPPLE David, I think this could use a bit more simplification in any case. However, Grapple Attack and Parry are distinct, as is any Weapon Attack and Parry, or Fist Attack and Parry. If you want an example of people that learn Attack separate from Parry, many schools of Jujutsu focus almost exclusively on attacks at first, and only later on counters. Aikido, in contrast, emphasizes Grapple Parry over Grapple Attack. Grapple Parry can be used to parry anything however, just as can Fist Parry. SKILLS We started with more skills than we thought should end up in the final draft - the idea was to see, through feedback, which new skills people found useful, and which they did not. Fear not, the next draft should have even less of them. Loren, take heart, we're working on an idea for how communication skills should function which may make you much happier with them - namely to make them function in a way that encourages roleplaying as opposed to rollplaying. More on this later. You're correct in that right now they aren't too useful. SORCERY I think Paul (and Mike) have some very interesting ideas here - some of these will hopefully end up in RQIV. THE GREAT APP VS. CHA DEBATE Hm. Looking at this, about all I can say is that it looks like there are few people happy with either. Here's another suggestion: rather than use either APP or CHA, which have specific connotations people have trouble with, how about using a different name entirely? One suggestion was to use something called Presence (PRE) instead (this came well before Paul's use of the term ). This would simply reflect how well a character presented themselves and something about the force of their personality. The individual player could then decide whether this came from physical appearance, charisma, or a mixture of both. For example, a character with a 13 PRE (above average) might have but an average appearance, but a magnetic personality and a good voice (strong charisma, if you will). A character with a 10 PRE might have average appearance and personality, or they might have above average appearance and an unappealing personality. Any opinions? Oliver  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA23921; Fri, 11 Jun 93 17:46:14 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA28939; Fri, 11 Jun 93 18:46:09 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Fri, 11 Jun 93 18:46:16 EDT From: curtiss@netcom.com (Curtis Shenton) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: COMMENTS ON COMMENTS ON COMMENTS Date: Fri, 11 Jun 93 15:46:38 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <151A6481BC6@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> > > > SKILL CATEGORY MODIFIERS > > Nick, I'm actually very much in agreement with you when you suggest using > POW in as few modifiers as possible - it changes constantly, which makes > it an incredible pain to refigure skills when you sacrifice for a point > of Divine Magic or enchant something or whatnot. You can tell people not > to change skills when their modifiers change post character generation, but > this is counter intuitive - where I've seen people try to implement this rule, > it has generally been discarded by the majority as making no sense. POW > is already incredibly valuable in spell casting, enchantment, magic resistance, > spell range, cult progression, luck rolls and spirit combat. I don't think it > would hurt to drop it from the modifiers. If we drop it from the modifiers let's drop it from all of them rather than just trying to limit the number of catagories modified by POW. Otherwise we still reduce the problem without solving it. On that note I'd like to say I've never had _that_ big a problem with changing modifiers. I always write the skill % without modifiers with the modifier at the top of the catagory. That way when POW changed I didn't have to rewrite every skill%. I'd rather make POW more stable and less likely to go up. But that would change quite a few assumptions of the magic system. > > I'd like to suggest the following changes: > 1) Drop POW from modifiers. Refiguring skills would become much rarer. > 2) Recalculate modifiers so that they balance more equally. It makes > little sense to me that an entire category of skills should be harder > or easier because it has more or less positive modifiers attached. > In RQIII, Stealth, Knowledge and Agility skill start at far lower levels > and progress more slowly by experience than do Manipulation, Magic, > Perception or Communication skills because of the number of positive > modifiers they have. I would suggest that the categories each have the > equivelant of two positive modifiers - a negative modifier such as SIZ > is OK, since it simply says that you must be small to gain the same > benefits as compared to another modifier. > 3) Simplify the calculation of the modifiers themselves. All three sound good. And I have no objection to dropping POW from the modifiers. > > Reasoning is just another name for Judgement skills, from > the earlier suggestion to drop the Stealth Skills Category > Modifier and add Reasoning (can be increased by experience), > contrasting with Knowledge (cannot be increase by experience)). I like it. Though I'm curious to see which skills end up in which catagory. > > > > THE GREAT APP VS. CHA DEBATE > > Hm. Looking at this, about all I can say is that it looks like > there are few people happy with either. Here's another suggestion: > rather than use either APP or CHA, which have specific connotations > people have trouble with, how about using a different name entirely? > One suggestion was to use something called Presence (PRE) instead > (this came well before Paul's use of the term ). This would > simply reflect how well a character presented themselves and > something about the force of their personality. The individual > player could then decide whether this came from physical appearance, > charisma, or a mixture of both. For example, a character with a 13 PRE > (above average) might have but an average appearance, but a magnetic > personality and a good voice (strong charisma, if you will). > A character with a 10 PRE might have average appearance and > personality, or they might have above average appearance and > an unappealing personality. Any opinions? > In otherwords you can't tell how goodlooking a character is by looking at the character sheet. I don't think just renaming CHA will help. And this Presence idea sounds pretty similar to charisma to me. Most charisma definitions have assumed looks were part of it after all. Maybe we should drop both CHA and APP from the game. > > > Oliver > -- Curtis Shenton curtiss@netcom.com internet & 4@3091 WWIVnet "At the GM's option, strategic nuclear weapons may be considered 'magical'"-From the CyberCthulhu rules in Interface  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA07286; Sat, 12 Jun 93 11:46:52 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA11493; Sat, 12 Jun 93 12:46:37 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Sat, 12 Jun 93 12:46:55 EDT From: joe@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Sedalpists? Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1993 15:10:10 MEZ Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <163A8F816B2@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> -- -- Joerg Baumgartner joe@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA27693; Fri, 11 Jun 93 21:13:57 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA02527; Fri, 11 Jun 93 22:13:54 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Fri, 11 Jun 93 22:14:00 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: COMMENTS ON COMMENTS by OJ Date: Sat, 12 Jun 93 12:13:13 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <1551C4B7343@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> A few comments on OJ's last comments: i) liked the RQIV damage bonus table. I think RQIII, like a lot of games, underestimates the importance of size and strength in combat. With the new table the difference between Siz 10 Str 11 (say an average 55 kg 165 cm/5'6" woman) and Siz 18 Str 18 (say a typical 125kg 200cm/6'7" viking beserk) is 1 Siz SR and +3 damage. A fair edge, yes; but in the real world I think the beserk would have more than an edge: I think he would almost always win, unless there was a great discrepancy in skill or equipment. If you want just straight damage bonuses, I think take them off the new (RQIV 2.0 Draft) table =. My GM liked the new table so much that he put them right into our current campaign and recalculated all the damage modifiers. ii) The new "POWless" skill modifier tables: these seem to make Int and Dex even more important (bit like GURPS :-)). I not saying that they aren't important, but they are important enough as is. I wouldn't mind seeing POW left in as a modifier of the Magic skills group: I don't see it a too much strain to alter one category of skills (and usually only three for non-sorcerers) with POW changes. I suggest: Magic: INT + POW - 20 or INT - 10 I've never seen Dex having that big an effect on magic. iii) The effects of fatigue: I really think the current RQIV modifiers are a very big mistake, for reasons I have stated before. You said that in your sparring experience fatigue makes you make sloppy mistakes: are these "hey, I missed but should have hit" or "hey, I just hit myself for max damage"? The current fatigue modifier increase the chance of both results _equally_!!! A straight reduction of chance of success gives the first result; the modifier to the roll gives the second. The RQIV draft rules afflict a fatigued fighter with bad luck. I think Carl Fink said this was a feature, not a bug: I think it is the most dangerous bug you could possibly introduce into the system. All of this IMHO, of course.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA07799; Sat, 12 Jun 93 12:21:03 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA11916; Sat, 12 Jun 93 13:21:02 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Sat, 12 Jun 93 13:21:04 EDT From: mabeyke@batman.b11.ingr.com (boris) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: MAGIC: SPIRIT COMBAT RANT Date: Sat, 12 Jun 93 12:23:19 CDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <1643B482592@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> TO: The RQ4 Gang of Six I knew there were holes in spirit combat, but didn't realize how big they were, or how hard it was to get around in them, until my players found the Thantari head chamber and were facing a bunch of mad head ghosts (really, it's just a coincidence they're fighting Thanatari just after SotB was released. Honest). Umm, guys, can we make this a *lot* simpler, please? Jumping back and forth between five (thats *5*) tables is something I expect from Chartmaster, not dear old RQ. My players gave up in disgust, after I corrected myself about ten times (let's see, results of attacks from both the Attack and All Out Attack tables [I assume mad head ghosts all out attack in spirit combat?], results of defense on both defend and all out defend tables, damage on the spirit combat damage table, oy vey!), because the "no, wait, you weren't drained that much" results were so bad. Also, what happened to Spirit Screen and Spirit Block? Used to, if you were lucky enough to have 8-10 points of Spirit Screen and were going against a spirit around your level, you were pretty safe (SS 4-5 was as good, if you could cast from MP storage); your effective MPs to defend would be 8-10 higher than normal. Granted, no one I've played RQ with except proto-shamen ever had more than 2-3 points. But one points of Spirit Block worked just as well. But now, you'd need enough to ensure frequent specials on the Spirit Combat Defense tables to ward MP drain, which would have to be *twenty* points of Screen, or four points of Block! So my players nearly got nickled and dimed to unconsciousness and possession, and would have barring GM fiat. Not a good thing for a GM to be blindsided with, I tell you! (Rant Mode Off) How about this for simplicity. Normal attacks are pretty much on the Attack table you have now; I can look up the damage and treat it like a slashing weapon (rolled damage, max damage, max plus rolled damage for normal, special, and critical success, respectively). Normal defense works just like Dodge; each level of success reduces one attack by one level, a fumbled defense improves the attack one level, maybe even allow a defense against all attacks from one opponent. All out attack just gives an additional attack, perhaps with the opportunity to bind or possess if either is a crit. All out defend lets you defend against all spirits, with a -10% penalty to each additional one, just like Dodge. And with this the mechanics for Spirit Block and Spirit Screen don't need to be changed from the current RQ4 draft. A normal success with defense will prevent damage from one normal attack. Now maybe you don't want SS10 or SB1 to be so effective (I can see your point with SB; two points or so would be better, but ten points of spirit magic is a BIG spell). However, there should be some level of spell where a character is reasonably safe from spirits roughly their level. What level do you want it to be? Oh, if you don't like this fix for spirit combat, or already have another you like better, how about posting it. My players still have a head room to clear. ---- (*) ZZ [] (.) @ e K| o8- |> oK <>< )o 3 8 <| If you can't stand the heat, you'll hate my Sunspear! Yelmic proverb. Boris |><| +- (| >- .: K * =|= <- (O) ( ) (o) (|) X-  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA00735; Sat, 12 Jun 93 00:38:52 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA05105; Sat, 12 Jun 93 01:38:39 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Sat, 12 Jun 93 1:38:53 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: SORCERY: Libidoes in Bondage! + SPIRIT MAGIC at the end Date: Sat, 12 Jun 93 15:37:47 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <1588658360C@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> More discussion about vows: Chaste means 'abstaining from unlawful or immoral or all sexual intercourse' according to my dictionary. The Rokari Wizard could therefore be married and have children and still be chaste. I don't think all the Malkionists would advocate complete sexual abstinence. I think the Rokari do as a way of copying the Brithini and getting the extended lifespan. The Hrestoli certainly value chastity in the sense of marital fidelity (see description of Snodal's life); but I think they have left the sexual baggage behind. I see the Hrestoli as more Islamic than most people. I'm not sure, but I doubt the Stygians have any problems with sex at all: the Trollish influence. The lesser freedom/greater power thing seems right, but I think doubling a sorcerer's PRE for sexual abstinence is way too much, especially if the religion has any form of forgiveness. A 5% increase in the chance of a POW increase would be closer to the mark. I really think the sexual aspect should be avoided in the core rules, for the same reason as one should avoid the "sorcery is evil" aspect. A lot of people will read the sorcery=no sex and conclude that they are warped. Re: Greg saying "All spells are individual skills". Has anyone shown the presence concept to him yet. I think he has an e-mail address. Greg can also change his opinion: he's done that about his own stuff more than once. I think the each spell=one skill is a bad idea, it tends to produce "One-Spell Charlies", as they are called in GURPS: sorcerers who are great at just one spell. This will be worsened by the RQIV manipulation rules, where intensity limits are determined by skills. I (and I think a lot of other gamers) like the "magic is a body of knowledge" concept more. If Greg has ever told anyone, I would like to know _why_ sorcery spells are one skill each. It's not as though Greg is infallible, especially in game mechanics. After all, his name is on the inside cover of RQIII, and he keeps telling us not to take his word as gospel anymore. Please post as much of your rune-sorcery system as you have easily available. If the ideas are as good as your presence system, you may get a lot for positive reaction. If RQIV gets published with the current RQ draft sorcery rules, I'll be looking for a new sorcery system, and our disagreements on sorcerer sexuality aside Graeme. PS. I think the RQ system also tends to produce a lot of "one-weapon charlies" as well. I would welcome a reduction in the number of weapon skills.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA19745; Sun, 13 Jun 93 05:29:03 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA23161; Sun, 13 Jun 93 06:28:56 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Sun, 13 Jun 93 6:29:05 EDT From: joe@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: DIVINE MAGIC Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1993 01:49:42 MEZ Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <1755D903783@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> In <14FA53424BB@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu>, Curtis writes: >>> I'd just like to say I support the idea of including the Rune Power idea as an optional rule. Right now the mechanics remind me of nothing less than AD&D with disposable magic spell feel. "Well I'm going to the Orlanth temple and I'm going to pick up two teleport greanges and one flight grenade." I think the idea of Rune Power where you can ask the god for any spell has a better feel. With this system if two groups want to swear an Oath spell the Humakt initaite can step in and cast oath if he has to(assuing he's already sacrificed some pow) I think divine spells should enable mortals to act as symbolic representitives of the gods and being able to call on any of the gods pwoers available to you when they are needed seems more in line with this. A Storm Bull worshipper shouldn't have to sit down and plan what spells he's going to need ahead of time. <<< One serious weakness with the Rune Power system is that any spell the deity has is granted to the initiate. I didn't like that for Godunya's magic in GoG, and I don't want to see it in RQ4. Even if the assigned spells for shrines etc are not those I'd expect there, and are something of a rules construct, I simply don't see initiates or priests visiting some obscure shrine and regain some very powerful magic. If the Rune Power system is to be used, an initiate ought to be able to cast only those spells he learned once. That is, the initiate must have gained the power he asks for once, before he can use it. This also with regard to stacking limits. The Rune Power system as I read it now has no stacking limits, if an Orlanthi faces a great troll and has forgotten to put on his armour, he still can cast all of his Rune Power for shield, say seven points. This is gross! My proposal would imply that he cannot stack any spell higher than the number of times he sacrificed for it. The example David Cheng gave to propagate his Rune Power system, the Ernalda initiate who has three points off Bless Crops and spends them on Heal body, would be possible in my variant only if she once learned the spell. If she once did, she could cast it as often as she can provide three points of Rune Power. Anything else would have to be DI. >>> If play balance is an option I have two suggestions. One is that initiates would have to sacrifice two pow for every one point of spell they could ask for. But considering that it'll be one use anyway I don't think this is needed. My other suggestion is that the first spell asked for each day is granted. But then everytime you ask for another spell you have to roll a die(1d10 for initiates and 1d100 for priests) if you roll under the number of points you've already cast that's it for the day. You'll have to fall back on DI if you need your god to save you. This can be explained any number of ways, the god is annoyed witht he frequent requests, it's a function of the Compromise, the god is busy, etc. The other thing I liek about this is that it would add bit of similarity to priests and the other two magic types. Just like a shaman makes his otherself awaken as a fetch on the spirit plane and feeds it pow and a sorceror binds his otherself to the real world and gives it pow a priest gives his otherself to his god and stores his pow that way, as a pool to be drawn on later. Comments? <<< Certainly! The Rune Power system seems a bit like a revolution in divine magic. As such I'd assign it to the revolutionary deity in Glorantha, the Red Goddess, but hardly the conventional deities. The free for all approach which allows incredible stacking (eg of extension) severely cuts at the balance of the system. It makes the priest/runelord as powerful as the deity, up to the limit of the sacrificed Rune Power points. These can be high, so high that the priest exhibits stronger magic than the deity! Rune magic is powerful as it is because it's instant. The only limitation it has is that the regaining takes a lot of time and effort, much more than for magic points. If we allow free access to any spell the deity can give, how do we handle associate deities' magic? How sub-cults' special spells? How do we handle overstacking? While I would allow to recast Heal Body if one has used up the one use one has sacrificed for, if one gives up three points of ohter divine magic. Equally I'd allow a character who has sacrificed for two points of Shield to cast Shield 2 as often as he has Rune Power points, but not to cast Shield 4 once. But this may sound confusing for somebody who just begins with RQ and has to cope with three different magic systems, so make it optional, at best. Don't make the system too complicated! Even if this means that some mechanisms remind of D&D. The whole genre does! -- -- Joerg Baumgartner joe@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA03768; Sat, 12 Jun 93 05:24:27 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA07517; Sat, 12 Jun 93 06:24:23 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Sat, 12 Jun 93 6:24:28 EDT From: gal502@huxley.anu.edu.au (Graeme Lindsell) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: RUNE MAGIC (REUSABLE) Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1993 20:24:11 -0600 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <15D49A800F2@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> I posted this a couple of weeks ago to the RQ Digest, and since I got no complaints I'll assume that everyone adored it... Hmm, my black&white Mac seems to have a rose-coloured screen. I'd like opinions on how this would fit as a optional rule in RQIV. If people like it I'll submit it to OJ. Note that most of the text at the start can be easily deleted: a paragraph of explanation and the table could fit in a sidebar. > It's been pointed that many of the published stories show initiates >throwing rune-magic all over the place. I think that the current >system doesn't reflect the world as described. > > I'd like initiates to get re-usable rune magic, even if rarely, >just because it distinguishes between the cults more effectively. >While the more limited spirit spell lists of RQIII help in >this regard, eventually most characters, especially ones with a lot >of experience, tend to start looking very similar in their spirit >spell lists, due to magic items or even going to shamans. It >is the rune-magic that is only available to particular cults >which make a real difference, but players almost never cast them, >due to the vast expense in POW. > > My GM, who just ran RoC for us, said that the scenario seemed to >have a different system for recovering rune magic, at least in >matrices. In the scenario, we just had to attend a successful >worship ceremony to get the matrices completely refilled, even >when they had four points of re-usable rune magic in them. This >may have been due to Zola Fel's particular interest in us, I >suppose, but it appealed to my GM as a better system for >recovering reusable rune magic than the current one, due >to making players want to attend those worship ceremonies. > > We (Gary James, my GM, and I, not the royal "we") proposed a >system like this: > >Worship Ceremony Priests get Acolytes get Initates get > >weekly All spells 1 point back nothing > back > >seasonal Ditto All spells 1 point back > back > >High Holy day Same again ditto All spells back. > > > So a priest can regain all his spells in a week, an acolyte in >a season, and an initiate in a year. If rapid recovery of spells >is vital, and enough initiates are available, a priest can >schedule more worship ceremonies in a week. > > Opinions? Flames? Comments on how gross it is? > --------------------------------------------------------------------- Graeme Lindsell Email: gal502@huxley.anu.edu.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA21102; Sun, 13 Jun 93 08:16:19 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA24397; Sun, 13 Jun 93 09:16:10 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Sun, 13 Jun 93 9:16:21 EDT From: Tom Zunder To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Skills POW Sorcery Date: Sun, 13 Jun 93 13:53 GMT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <178274E1185@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Skills The playtest had too many skills. I wouldn't say that RQ produces one weapon charlies, danger is that it produces too many weapon berties. In many games one is master of one or jack of all trades, in RQ it can be that one is master of all or jack of none POW I think POW should be taken out of all skills save for magic Sorcery Could someone post me the RQIV sorcery bit, I have the rest. Also the Presence rules -------------------------------------------------------------------- Orlanth Rex! tzunder@cix.compulink.co.uk --------------------------------------------------------------------  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA22843; Sun, 13 Jun 93 11:44:24 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA26467; Sun, 13 Jun 93 12:44:17 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Sun, 13 Jun 93 12:44:26 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Matrices as Gods Date: Sun, 13 Jun 93 12:44:23 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <17B9F71028A@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> > > Paul is a God Learner, burn him! > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Orlanth Rex! tzunder@cix.compulink.co.uk This from a guy who worships one of our former grad students who was kicked out from Jrustela U. for unethical practices. Your naivete' is touching. - Paul and Finula  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA23921; Sun, 13 Jun 93 13:32:24 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA27976; Sun, 13 Jun 93 14:32:13 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Sun, 13 Jun 93 14:32:17 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: COMMENTS ON COMMENTS >IMO< LONG Date: Sun, 13 Jun 93 14:32:18 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <17D6C16505A@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Reply to OJ's post: DAMAGE BONUS None of the proposed changes seem different enough (to me) from RQ3 to warrant promulagation. If you're keeping bascially the same damage bonus for a given strength, why not keep the old system? If you want to change to damage based on the person rather than the weapon (like PENDRAGON) that would warrant a rules rewrite. I think that most players will not want to bother learning a rules change that gives them practically the same average effect as before, unless it's A LOT simpler. STRIKE RANKS Again, why bother with minor changes unless they are simplifications that give the same effect? If someone has playtested one of the proposed variants and found that it makes a noticeable improvement in combats, please give an example to the list. A lot of long time players already know the existing system and it seems to me that changing a base rule should involve streamlining or noticeable improvement. SKILL CATEGORY MODIFIERS On our sheets we usually don't even bother writing down the final skill, just the basic skill and the modifier separately. Add them up at the time the skill is used.. Remember you have to refigure modifers when other stats change due to spells or disease or training, why single out POW? At least there are no spells to boost POW. Perception and communication _should_ be affected by POW, likewise (in my opinion) Agility, Parry, and Knowledge. Much of the Dodge and Parry skills come from a mystic-seeming ability to anticipate the opponent, this should be based on the same compartment of the mind that affects Perception. If the POW yo-yo is a problem, fix the yo-yo. Refiguring a couple of skill mods is just a perturbation on what you have to do anyway when POW yo-yos: magic points and magic skills modifier, spirit magic chance, etc. which can involve twenty of thirty things already. Finula says: The POW you're born with is your natural Power. This should be the natural number POW tends toward. When your POW goes below it it will quickly return to the natural level. Raising it above is an uphill battle. Thus there are people born to be High Priests, etc. At least this is the way it works in stories and myths. A powerful spirit is a powerful spirit. Argin Terror and Jar Eel were obviously High POW and stayed that way. How far your POW can get should be proportionate to what it started out as Otherwise everbody would eventually end up with the same POW, which is not the case. (A mechanic for this would be to make POW Gain rolls = (Original - Current) x 5% + 50%. I suggested this as a variant on the Digest a couple of years ago. We tried it and it worked pretty well, people were sort of 'destined' to be priests. Note this gives guy with 11 POW exactly the current POW roll. People with natural 15 POW have just the POW gain roll of the RQ II Priestess. - paul) If we remove POW from all modifiers except Magic, what the hell are we measuring? I thought POW was a sort of personal force and willPOWER that could affect you in many ways. The person with higher POW should have more chance of winning a social confrontation, so POW SHOULD go on Communication. If high POW people aren't more Perceptive than low POW people, what the hell does POW mean apart from its use in magic? Is mana completely divorced from talents like art that come under craft skills? I think the guys who are suggesting deleting POW as a modifier are attacking the symptom rather than the cause. Suggested mechanics for solving the YOYO problem: 1. Keep base skills separate from modifiers. What do you guys do when someone casts Coordination, rewrite the sheet or just add a mod to the final skill? I think the stat mods should be kept out of the base skill used for training and experience anyway. If we went to a coarser system this would be easier to keep track of. 2. BASE POW MODS ON ORIGINAL POW. Thus the original rolled POW is a significant stat, affecting the person throughout his life. Thieves would love this, and absolutely no yoyo. 3. Make POW a stat trainable by meditation, prayer, communion with spirits, magical exercise over time, etc. Change your magical currency into something else (Like Glory). This is a pretty extreme change. Anyway, other stats yoyo as well. Why not take Dex out of the Attack and Parry modifiers, after all it changes every time someone casts Coordination. All modifiers should be based on INT and SIZ alone. >Magic Skills Category Modifier >INT + DEX - 20 Dex is equally important to INT? And what does POW mean if it doesn't even affect magic? _______________ >FATIGUE >The chance of fumbling increasing, even dramatically, was exactly I have fought for sixteen years, I think that fumpble may go up a bit but not by a factor of dozens. Exhausted people don't 'hit nearest friend' twenty times more often, they're much more likely to just get hit because they can no longer parry. Thus I think increasing the Autofailure gives a much better picture of what happens - you're just too tired to get that block or attack in. Many of those fumbles stem from people attacking vigorously, when you get exhausted you're more likely to just slow down to the point where you're missing blocks and attacks than have armor straps break more often - armor straps break when you're running around, not when you're standing there trying to conserve energy. I feel pretty strongly about this. _______________ SPECIAL COMBAT OPTIONS These are pretty good. Can the person who wrote these make up a short version (for the basic rulebook) and then the culture books for various cultures add various special manuevers? For example the Troll manuever that allows a free bite on a special hit should go in a Troll book, martial arts manuevers SKILLS There should be a lot of skills in the draft now, prune later. I like the idea of Hard skills that include Easier skills, which can start at the Hard skill base if you decide to specialize. I like haveing a system where you can put in more detail on the areas that are important; in a gladiatiorial campaign many special fighting skills, in a sages campaign many special knowledges. Is it really appropriate for Lhankor Mhy and Irripi Ontor cultists to have single skills like Human Lore but separate skills for Sword Attack, Sword Parry, Shortsword Attack & Parry, etc.? APP vs CHA "Presence" is a good name for the social stat. We'll try to come up with something else for our sorcery system. We always interpreted CHA as Oliver suggests for Presence, some people are likable, some good-looking, some commanding. _________ Curtiss: Curtis wants to drop POW from all modifiers. I reiterate my above comments. I like basing mods on Original POW, at least it's a reason for having it on the sheet. > 2) Recalculate modifiers so that they balance more equally. It makes This is a very good idea. I do this in my campaigns but use POW for the purpose, adding it to Agility and Parry (based on my own experience) and make it a secondary for knowledge, and it's the primary for Perception. ____ Graeme says: > i) liked the RQIV damage bonus table. I think RQIII, like a lot >of games, underestimates the importance of size and strength in I agree with the latter statement completely. I think that STR and SIZ should give base damage as in PENDRAGON and that weapons should modify this. If we are not willing to make this basic change then I don't think that tweaking the weapon damege+modifier system is worth the investment it takes for thousands of players to unlearn one table and learn a new one. Make the big break to base damage on the person, modified by the tool she is using, or don't bother. I for one would find it easier to memorize a new system than minor changes in a table of the old one. Fatigue: Graeme seems to agree with me, the proposed fumble chances are just to high. It really is much more likely that you just will be too slow to parry after a while. Also there is a big difference between fighting another tired fighter and a fresh one. On Graeme on Vows: Thanks, this is good stuff. I think Malkioni sorcerors often rechannel their sexual energies into magic, Kingtroll sorcerors have to eat special foods with plenty of life force to fuel their magic. Live bugs, plants, intelligent beings freshly killed with a club or strangling (swords and spears make holes which let the life force leak out), etc. Summary on Graeme's stuff: Rokari: I agree here, note also restriction on food and drink: "... have they never sipped the chill wine or sank teeth into the fresh haunch of venison? Never felt the warm quiver of naked flesh? No, of course they have not, and their bitter vows turn them into damnable hypocrites or shrill-voiced saints admonishing us against life itself." - Sir Harfien Vandervasse talking about Wizards > The lesser freedom/greater power thing seems right, but I think >doubling a sorcerer's PRE for sexual abstinence is way too much, Uhh, I was thinking of this as just one of many Vows, each worth X points of Presence, limit double the base. Either that or the basic effects _require_ these vows and not keeping them diminishes you. This isn't supposed to be a reward from some bookkeeping god but rather a way of rerouting your natural energies into magic. The sorceror becomes a dried up stick because his life force is fueling his magic. > I really think the sexual aspect should be avoided in the core rules, I never intended this to be in the _core_ rules, it just seems right for Malkioni. Sex is an important part of the base life force and can be powerful if sublimated into sorcery but for example Troll sorcerors fuel their magic through special foods, Dwarves may actually use machines to power spells, etc. This is just one of the main Malkioni modes to channel your personal force into sorcerous power. Tantric sorcerors use sexual energy also, but in a very different way from the Rokari. > Re: Greg saying "All spells are individual skills". Has anyone shown >the presence concept to him yet. I think he has an e-mail address. I'm working on a second draft, will try to get that shown to him. With all the current suggestions + zillions of our own ideas we have a bit to to for the draft but will try to have it out soon, approximately beginning of July. _________ > I (and I think a lot of other gamers) like the "magic is >a body of knowledge" concept more. Including me. > If Greg has ever told anyone, I would like to know _why_ >sorcery spells are one skill each. Me too. It would make sense if spells were inherited from the Brithini as complex things that no-one understood, but we are told that sorcerors do spell research and discover new spells. Look at the God Learners, they were able to _design_ new effects as desired. > Please post as much of your rune-sorcery system as you have easily OK, I will do so this week. A lot of it is now in the form of notes on paer, so I will type in a rough draft. Please read it charitably as I have not the time to polish it. Rune magic: Graeme posts a possible system for recovery. There are a bunch out there, perhaps someone could tabulate and send out various alternatives in a neat package. I think this sort of thing is a good idea. How much do we know about the theory of Rune magic anyway? I'll try to post mine at some point. Theory might help us answer this question, of course game balance is important too. I find Nick's Storm Bull example compelling. _______________ Well, this is long enough. More later, Paul R. ___________ PS> Thanks everyone for all the comments.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA21876; Mon, 14 Jun 93 14:11:39 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA27072; Mon, 14 Jun 93 15:09:59 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 14 Jun 93 15:11:33 EDT From: burt@ptltd.com (Burton Choinski) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: COMMENTS -- reply's to Oliver's notes Date: Mon, 14 Jun 93 15:06:15 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <1960DF928C2@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> >From JOVANOVIC@CUCCFA.CCC.COLUMBIA.EDU Fri Jun 11 18:33:41 1993 Received: from ptltd.com (ns) by vino (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA00890; Fri, 11 Jun 93 18:33:37 EDT Received: from noc4.dccs.upenn.edu by ptltd.com (4.1/ (Hub configuration V0.2-2/28/92)) id AA06877; Fri, 11 Jun 93 18:36:51 EDT Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA28307; Fri, 11 Jun 93 18:25:33 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Fri, 11 Jun 93 18:25:38 EDT From: JOVANOVIC@CUCCFA.CCC.COLUMBIA.EDU To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: COMMENTS ON COMMENTS Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1993 18:26:30 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <1514D904C8E@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Status: R Comments on Oliver's RQ4 new revisions. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | DAMAGE BONUS | 1-5 -4 | 6-10 -3 ... | 41-45 +4 | 46-50 +5 | | Each +5 add 1 Looks good. Don't forget the creature column on the other side, like in the 2.0 draft. I'll probably implement this in the next session. | STRIKE RANKS Looks good. Again, I'll give a try next session. However, some randomness would be good. I got hit in sunday's game with "Well, I hit at 5, he hits at 7, so I'll just....". Perhaps each person rolls 1d10, MOD SR. So in general, high SR people will have higher base numbers. Actions (move before attack, draw weapon, etc) and weapon SR add directly to the result. So, for example, if Joe, with a Melee SR of 4 rolls a 6, is actual base is 2 (6 MOD 4) plus that of his weapon. Other then that, I like the combined Melee table better then adding the two seperate values. I think, however, that one could extend the mechanic and get a DEX+INT value for things like fine detail stuff where SIZ really is not a factor, but INT is. |SKILL CATEGORY MODIFIERS | Nick, I'm actually very much in agreement with you when you suggest using | POW in as few modifiers as possible - it changes constantly, which makes I have no problem with POW in modifiers. For knowledge, perhaps not, but Communication I can see it. | of Divine Magic or enchant something or whatnot. You can tell people not | to change skills when their modifiers change post character generation, but | this is counter intuitive I told this to my group on sunday, and they agree with it. So, your initial skill is affected by the current rating, but thereafter you need not erase half your sheet when a characteristic changes. | 2) Recalculate modifiers so that they balance more equally. It makes | little sense to me that an entire category of skills should be harder | or easier because it has more or less positive modifiers attached. | In RQIII, Stealth, Knowledge and Agility skill start at far lower levels | and progress more slowly by experience than do Manipulation, Magic, | Perception or Communication skills because of the number of positive I really agree with this. Balance out the categories a bit. I feel that give Joe average human (because the rules are humanocentric as "the norm") with STR 10-11, SIZ 13, CON 10-11, INT 13, DEX 10-11, POW 10-11 and APP 10-11 a base 0% in each area, with enough counterbalance to make the other races not so frigging overwelming in the modifiers. | 3) Simplify the calculation of the modifiers themselves. Cant hurt either. :) | This is what it would look like: | Agility Skills Category Modifier | STR + DEX - SIZ - 10 i.e. 10.5 + 10.5 - 13 - 10 = -2 Perhaps tweaked to: STR + DEX - SIZ - 8? | Communication Skills Category Modifier | INT + APP - 20 i.e. 13 + 10.5 - 20 = +3 or +4 Perhaps Tweaked to: INT + APP - 23? | Magic Skills Category Modifier | INT + DEX - 20 Same notes as above. | Manipulation Skills Category Modifier | STR/2 + INT/2 + DEX - 20 i.e. 5.25 + 6.5 + 10.5 - 20 = +2 Perhaps tweak to: STR/2 + INT/2 + DEX - 22? | Perception Skills Category Modifier | INT + CON - 20 Same notes as for Communications | Reasoning Skills Category Modifier | INTx2 - 20 i.e. 13 + 13 - 20 = +6 Tweak to INTx2 - 26? I presume Knowledge remains INT - 10 (Tweaked: INT - 13)? Tweaked values assume the Humano-centric view. Average humans will get base 0% modifiers] (or so). Presumably players will use one of the alternate roll methods, so their bonuses will be be off that. Max-man would end up with AGI +10, COM +13, MAG +13, MAN +14, PER +13, RES +10 using the tweaked values, but AGI +8, COM +16, MAG +16, MAN +16, PER +16, RES +16 using the above values. | SKILL VS. SKILL | | that this was more complex than dividing each skill by 10 | and comparing on the resistance table (reducing it to the | same mechanic used by an MP vs. MP struggle). Actually, this produces an even simpler way that can be used as a generic mechanic: Each side rolls 1d20+(Skill/10) -- ties goes to active over passive and if both are active (or both passive), tie goes to the one requireing the least effort or with an advantage. So in a sneak vs. scan, the "scanner" needs less effort to see the sneaker, and would win in a tie if both were active. If the lazy guard is passive, the active sneaker wins in a tie. | TRAINING (CHARACTERISTICS AND OTHERWISE) | I'm working on something that tries to approach the situation | from the idea of how a character spends his or her time over a | period of time (perhaps with a minimum interval of a week). | More to come on this. This would be welcome and minimize the "training sessions" in the town problem, as well as provide for such things as picking up riding while on the road, languages whil in another region, etc. | FATIGUE I still find fatigue more of a pain then it is worth keeping track of, at least at present. I'll have to take a look at the rules again when the next draft is released. | THE GREAT APP VS. CHA DEBATE I think the "Personal Presence" characteristic is better then raw appearance. Presense or PRE sounds good to me. =============================================================================== Other comments: In the acutal product will the maps be re-done? I have the Glorantha set and the maps are fairly crude. I know that is how they are supposed to look, but some additional detail would be nice. I have some people treking about Carminia, but I doubt there are only 4 cities in there. As an aid for myself I figured the size of a 20km distance on the maps and overlayed a hex grid for movements. But even so, It seems to me that much better detail can be had. See "Powers & Perils" _Perilous Lands_ set for an idea. The map book was excellent in detail with regards to terrain, political areas, city and town placement, etc. The culture book was also very good. The mapbook easily detailed an area at least 3000 miles across, and about that much north-south. Any reason why something similar can't be done for RQ4? I was considering taking my hex-gridded maps and re-doing them on a Macintosh for laser print, complete with color. Such a massive project will take time to do. Odds are I'd start with the luner area (cuz that's where my group is bopping about now). I was thinking of a 10km hex grid, with each hex being about 1/5th of an inch each. This would provide about 35x45 hex area for each map panel (350km W-E, 450km N-S), although I might cut this to 35x35 to leave room for a legend and other info. Oliver, IF (assuming I get the time) I get the maps working along, would the RQ4 project be interested in them? I mean, you guys get the Mac disks and source files to modify as required for inclusion or later publication? No need to have work that I'd like done (and would do anyways) go to waste or be needlessly duplicated. -- Burton  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA24842; Mon, 14 Jun 93 15:21:54 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01201; Mon, 14 Jun 93 16:21:47 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 14 Jun 93 16:21:52 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: COMMENTS -- reply's to Oliver's notes Date: Mon, 14 Jun 93 16:21:42 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <1973FEA6AF9@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Paul R. here. Just a couple of quick ones, reply to Burton's message: >| DAMAGE BONUS > Looks good. I still say don't bother with minor changes. Either switch to basing damage on the being with weapon modifiers or leave it with what the players already know... | STRIKE RANKS This table really does look like a slight improvement, I'm marginal on whether it's worth the cost of changing. >some randomness would be good From my experience in fighting I'd say that you could add a special option to try to one-shot your opponent at half chance, on SR 1, once you are in range. This is throwing your single best shot. It might only work once per fight, or at a decreasing chance. (this could be instead of your usual attack. ______________ POW: Is the yoyoing really such a problem? If so then it's a problem for spirit magic chances too. Why not just eliminate POW altogether? Base MP on STR. (not serious here.) If POW doesn't affect any of the skills we understand from the real world, the concept of a high POW person is reduced to "guy with a bunch of big guns - uhh, I mean spells". The POW mods tell us what sort of real-world person is like the RQ character with high POW: She is perceptive, vivacious, charismatic (communication mod), etc. Eliminating the POW mods kills this connection. I'd actually ADD some POW mods: to me a martial arts Master should have a high POW, even more than a high INT or DEX. Riding should include POW. Thus I'd say: Agility: POW + DEX + STR/2 - SIZ Parry: POW + DEX + STR/2 Ooops, gotta go. Note above changes help balance Attack & Defense.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA26913; Mon, 14 Jun 93 16:16:22 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA03313; Mon, 14 Jun 93 17:16:17 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 14 Jun 93 17:16:20 EDT From: Tom Zunder To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: RQIV Date: Mon, 14 Jun 93 21:53 GMT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <19828B31894@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> My concerns; 1: Character gen is very nice in draft 2.0 2: Spirit magic and combat looks good 3: Combat is becoming overcomplex 4: The Rune Power idea just doesn't cut ice with me 5: I don't like changing things which aren't broken, ie damage bonuses 6: I haven't seen the sorcery draft 7: I don't like long posts! -------------------------------------------------------------------- Orlanth Rex! tzunder@cix.compulink.co.uk --------------------------------------------------------------------  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA01508; Mon, 14 Jun 93 17:53:04 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA06125; Mon, 14 Jun 93 18:53:00 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 14 Jun 93 18:53:05 EDT From: JOVANOVIC@CUCCFA.CCC.COLUMBIA.EDU To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: RE: RQIV Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1993 18:54:30 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <199C57D5D63@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> A number of the playtesters (not just those on this list) have requested simplifications in combat and spirit combat (although a few have asked for additional complications ) - some of these are nearly finished. Oliver  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA01677; Mon, 14 Jun 93 17:59:35 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA06248; Mon, 14 Jun 93 18:59:31 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 14 Jun 93 18:59:36 EDT From: "Loren Miller" To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: RQ4: any word on draft 3.0 ? Date: 14 Jun 93 18:57:54 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <199E1A614F3@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Ollie, Carl, all? Any word on when we will be able to see draft 3.0 or the changes to bring 2.0 to 3.0? What changes are in store for this draft? How many drafts do you plan to do? -- +++++++++++++++++++++++23 Loren Miller LOREN@wmkt.wharton.upenn.edu Into the flood again, same old trip it was back when  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA03786; Mon, 14 Jun 93 19:17:35 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA07787; Mon, 14 Jun 93 20:17:29 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 14 Jun 93 20:17:35 EDT From: jjm@zycor.lgc.com (johnjmedway) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: ARMOR, DAMAGE & FATIGUE Date: Mon, 14 Jun 93 19:17:07 CDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <19B2D960322@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> ARMOR: ------ >> From: "Roderick Robertson, SC1-5, x52936" >> Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1993 13:24 PST >> >> I think you need to have a Material modifier to determine AP, >> rather than size. There is a great difference between a traditional >> ... >> >> Armor Points/Encumbrance/Cost >> Material Small Medium Large >> >> Leather (1 Ply) 3/0.5/1 4/1.0/3 5/1.5/5 >> Wicker 5/1.0/5 7/2.0/10 9/3.0/20 >> Wood 8/1.5/25 10/3.0/50 13/4.5/75 >> Wood/Leather 12/2.0/50 14/4.0/75 16/6.0/100 (standard) >> Reinf. W/L 15/2.5/60 17/4.5/90 20/6.5/125 >> Bronze 15/2.0/110 17/4.0/140 20/7.0/150 >> ... I'd say the AP range was too extreme, but this seems like the way to go. Shields have always seemed funny because they did not vary with material. I'd also like to get back to armor and helms being described more like they were in RQ2. The old chart described typical pieces of armor, and helms, and their effects on the wearer (the AP, Encumberance, Move Quietly & Scan adjustment, etc.). I think this is a far cry better than the Full Suit of Bezainted = ..., with the afterthought of "and for those who don't like D&D armor classes, the by the piece prices use the following formula ..." descriptions in RQ3. That part is made worse in RQ4, as the price % for a hauberk is at one %, yet the encumberance is at another%. Yuk. Put it on one table. Ditto for helmits and other head coverings. We had different _styles_ of helmits in RQ2, and in RQ3 we had different materials, but never the two did meet. I think we should develop a hybrid table, like the older RQ2 table, or like that for shields above with values for the likely helm/hood styles, and likely materials. I have most of this table worked out, and will post if anyone asks. >> With such a system, more Cultural differences could be introduced >> (Sartar Orlanthi use Wood, Wood/Leather, or Reinforced Wood/Leather; >> Sun Domers use Reinforced Wood/Leather or Bronze; Ducks use Wicker or >> Leather; etc.). Has anyone made a serious dent in listing what arms, armors and shields are culturally appropriate? or is this virgin territory? ( I'd recommend that this last part be followed up on the digest. ) DAMAGE, FATIGUE AND FUMBLES: ---------------------------- >> From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu >> Subject: Re: COMMENTS ON COMMENTS >IMO< LONG >> Date: Sun, 13 Jun 93 14:32:18 EDT >> >> None of the proposed changes seem different enough (to me) from RQ3 >> to warrant promulagation. If you're keeping bascially the same damage >> bonus for a given strength, why not keep the old system? If you want >> >> ... >> >> I think that STR and SIZ should give base damage as in PENDRAGON and that >> weapons should modify this. >> If we are not willing to make this basic change then I don't think that >> tweaking the weapon damege+modifier system is worth the investment it takes >> for thousands of players to unlearn one table and learn a new one. Make >> the big break to base damage on the person, modified by the tool she is using, >> or don't bother. I for one would find it easier to memorize a new system >> than minor changes in a table of the old one. I agree wholeheartedly. The simplest, and most closely compatible, system would probably be something like the following: Keep weapon dice the same, and have the character's STR + SIZ multiply the damage: STR + SIZ DAMAGE STR + SIZ DAMAGE STR + SIZ DAMAGE 01 - 04 50% 21 - 24 100% 41 - 44 150% 05 - 08 60% 25 - 28 110% 45 - 48 160% 09 - 12 70% 29 - 32 120% 48 - 52 170% 13 - 16 80% 33 - 36 130% 53 - 56 180% 17 - 20 90% 37 - 40 140% 57 - 60 190% The reverse, having strength determine the dice, and the weapon, the multi- plier ( number rolled, whatever ) is appealing, but the weapon tables look and feel unfamiliar. Also, if opting for this latter Pendragon-esque form, the Pendragon modifiers of "add a die" or "subtract a die" for various weapon types is as much a glitch in the machine as the RQ-style damage mods independant of weapon type. This system can also be used to determine damage from Bows, etc., by counting 2 x STR and ignoring size altogether. >> I have fought for sixteen years, I think that fumpble may go up a bit but >> not by a factor of dozens. Exhausted people don't 'hit nearest friend' >> twenty times more often, they're much more likely to just get hit >> because they can no longer parry. Thus I think increasing the Autofailure >> gives a much better picture of what happens - you're just too tired to get >> that block or attack in. Many of those fumbles stem from people attacking >> ... >> I feel pretty strongly about this. I'd like to second, or by now, third the motion. 1. It's unrealistic in how sloppy it makes fatigued fighters 2. Keep it simple and consistent. Modifiers always affect base chance of success, and the Critcal/Special/Fumble numbers are derived from this base. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | john_medway@zycor.lgc.com | Landmark Graphics Corp | 512.292.2325 | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA03849; Mon, 14 Jun 93 19:20:38 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA07933; Mon, 14 Jun 93 20:20:35 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 14 Jun 93 20:20:38 EDT From: jjm@zycor.lgc.com (johnjmedway) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: APP v. CHA v. PRE Date: Mon, 14 Jun 93 19:20:25 CDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <19B3BB736A2@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> APP V. CHA V. PRE: ------------------ >> From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu >> Subject: Re: COMMENTS ON COMMENTS >IMO< LONG >> Date: Sun, 13 Jun 93 14:32:18 EDT >> >> APP vs CHA >> "Presence" is a good name for the social stat. We'll try to come up with >> something else for our sorcery system. We always interpreted CHA as >> Oliver suggests for Presence, some people are likable, some good-looking, >> some commanding. The problem with _all_ of them is that they are _much_ more subjective than _any_ of the other stats. I'd say either have _both_ APP & CHA, or lose both. And PREsence is just CHArisma under another name. Arguments for Losing Both: CHA could be replaced by interpreting one or more of the communication skills. This would work especially well if the Ringworld root skill idea is adapted, but nobody else seems to like that. APP should be demoted, and used only to yield some "interesting traits" a la Pendragon. or, better still, ... APP could also be transformed into a 'skill' (not really, but using the mechanism), more along the lines of the Custom (culture) skills. What attractive to a Troll ( big, brutish, sloping forehead, big teeth, bad breath ) is not necessarily the same as what is attractive to your average Storm Bull ( big, brutish, wait a minute... ) er, bad example. I mean a Dara Happan Yelmite ( blonde hair, fair skin, tall, ... ). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | john_medway@zycor.lgc.com | Landmark Graphics Corp | 512.292.2325 | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA04435; Mon, 14 Jun 93 20:03:33 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA08724; Mon, 14 Jun 93 21:03:25 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 14 Jun 93 21:03:26 EDT From: "Loren Miller" To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: STATS: The case for CHARISMA Date: 14 Jun 93 21:01:21 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <19BF1DF445B@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Just a few comments. 1. Presence and Charisma describe the same thing. Charisma is from RuneQuest, Presence isn't. Let's not change things that don't make a real difference. 2. Have all those who dislike Charisma played with it under the RQ2 rules? If so, what didn't work? If not, what are your specific objections? 3. I can look at my character sheet and tell what a character looks like without looking at an APP line. My character sheet has a place for a character portrait and individual lines for height, weight, build, eyes, hair, and voice. I think that describes APP a lot better than a single value. 4. I still think that APP is useless and sexist. At least there is a use for CHA: to calculate discounts and to see if people like your character at first sight. Occasionally GMs may want to be able to roll dice for NPC reactions, and I'd rather work with a characteristic for this function than account for another skill (pun intended). 5. Character appearance is one of the things that most players want to decide themselves, and if their preference conflicts with APP you can guess which one they ignore. -- +++++++++++++++++++++++23 Loren Miller LOREN@wmkt.wharton.upenn.edu Into the flood again, same old trip it was back when  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA05929; Mon, 14 Jun 93 21:11:32 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA09951; Mon, 14 Jun 93 22:11:26 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 14 Jun 93 22:11:31 EDT From: curtiss@netcom.com (Curtis Shenton) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: APP v. CHA v. PRE Date: Mon, 14 Jun 93 19:11:47 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <19D144F1E6A@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> > > APP V. CHA V. PRE: > ------------------ > > The problem with _all_ of them is that they are _much_ more subjective than > _any_ of the other stats. I'd say either have _both_ APP & CHA, or lose both. > And PREsence is just CHArisma under another name. > I quite agree thqat CHA and PRE are different names for the same thing. And I still don't like CHA no matter what the name for it is. > > Arguments for Losing Both: > > CHA could be replaced by interpreting one or more of the communication > skills. This would work especially well if the Ringworld root skill idea > is adapted, but nobody else seems to like that. I like it! :) > > APP should be demoted, and used only to yield some "interesting traits" > a la Pendragon. > > or, better still, ... > > APP could also be transformed into a 'skill' (not really, but using the > mechanism), more along the lines of the Custom (culture) skills. > > What attractive to a Troll ( big, brutish, sloping forehead, big teeth, > bad breath ) is not necessarily the same as what is attractive to your > average Storm Bull ( big, brutish, wait a minute... ) er, bad example. > I mean a Dara Happan Yelmite ( blonde hair, fair skin, tall, ... ). > I like this alot. Maybe this attracive skill could be based on 25+APP(attribute) for your race culture but have 0+APP(attribute) for all other cultures. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > | john_medway@zycor.lgc.com | Landmark Graphics Corp | 512.292.2325 | > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > From: "Loren Miller" Subject: STATS: The case for CHARISMA >Just a few comments. > >2. Have all those who dislike Charisma played with it under the RQ2 >rules? If so, what didn't work? If not, what are your specific >objections? I played RQ2 quite a bit. CHA was always too abstract to me. I'd rather have a discount for goods based on high how my bargain skill is(even without rolling) than have that and a whole bunch of other factors like looks bundled up into one stat. > >3. I can look at my character sheet and tell what a character looks >like without looking at an APP line. My character sheet has a place >for a character portrait and individual lines for height, weight, >build, eyes, hair, and voice. I think that describes APP a lot better >than a single value. I dunno Loren, most descriptions I've seen aren't as descriptive as yours must be. Most descriptions I see are along the lines of, "6ft tall, 210lbs, blue eyes, blond hair, husky voice." Now if this tells you how attractive someone is I'd like to know how. Since I could describe two people of wildly different appearances with the same basic description if that's all the detail I have to give. >4. I still think that APP is useless and sexist. At least there is a >use for CHA: to calculate discounts and to see if people like your >character at first sight. Occasionally GMs may want to be able to >roll dice for NPC reactions, and I'd rather work with a >characteristic for this function than account for another skill (pun >intended). I think a stat too "see if people like your character at first sight" is a _bad_ idea. It sounds more like a luck score than anything else. ;) >5. Character appearance is one of the things that most players want >to decide themselves, and if their preference conflicts with APP you >can guess which one they ignore. Play a point build system! :) Seriously though I don't see how rolling a 3 on CHA is going to make a player feel more free to create a handsome character than rolling a 3 on APP is. -- +++++++++++++++++++++++23 Loren Miller LOREN@wmkt.wharton.upenn.edu Into the flood again, same old trip it was back when -- Curtis Shenton curtiss@netcom.com internet & 4@3091 WWIVnet "At the GM's option, strategic nuclear weapons may be considered 'magical'"-From the CyberCthulhu rules in Interface  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA13354; Tue, 15 Jun 93 04:31:51 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA15549; Tue, 15 Jun 93 05:31:40 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Tue, 15 Jun 93 5:31:51 EDT From: Malcolm Cohen To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: ARMOUR, DAMAGE, CHARISMA Date: Tue, 15 Jun 93 10:31:25 MET Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <1A46B2E456F@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> > I'd also like to get back to armor and helms being described more like > they were in RQ2. The old chart described typical pieces of armor, and I agree that this gives more colour to the armour description. It took perhaps 6 months for a group of my players to realise that there were great advantages in wearing a fairly solidly built helm even when they could not afford (or carry!) mega-armour all over; they only dropped to this because some NPC's did it! The current table discourages such mixing of armour types; the rules overall are complicated enough so that people will either not notice such things or be put off by the messiness of extra calculations. > I have most of this table worked out, and will post if anyone asks. Please? DAMAGE: > >> None of the proposed changes seem different enough (to me) from RQ3 > >> to warrant promulagation. If you're keeping bascially the same damage > >> bonus for a given strength, why not keep the old system? If you want (Not having seen the RQ4 draft, I assume it has the same bonus system as RQ3). Because I always (even when RQ2 first came out!) thought the damage bonus system was broken! It changes in big jumps, this is unnecessary and a real downer on those who just miss out on the +d4: d8+1 is *SO* much less that d8+1+d4 in getting though armour etc. So I just broke down the increments into smaller steps, viz +1,+d2,+d3,+d4,+d5,+d6,... > This system can also be used to determine damage from Bows, etc., by counting > 2 x STR and ignoring size altogether. If the SR system is going to use SIZ as an abstraction of height & reach I see no reason why the (non-Cross)bow damage system should ignore it. Just use the normal damage mod here. CHARISMA: Replacing RQ3APP with RQ2CHA would definitely be an improvement; like Loren I find APP next to useless and prone to sexism. Even the simple removal of APP would be better than keeping it. I see nothing wrong with using the term "Charisma" for it, it is reasonably accurate usage... -- ...........................Malcolm Cohen, NAG Ltd., Oxford, U.K. (malcolm@nag.co.uk)  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA06208; Tue, 15 Jun 93 15:41:30 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA07451; Tue, 15 Jun 93 16:34:33 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Tue, 15 Jun 93 16:39:51 EDT From: joe@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: DAMAGE BONUSES Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1993 15:38:50 MEZ Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <1AF773D5EE6@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Damage boni: Keep it easy! Graemes suggestion with all types of dice becomes inconvenient as soon as you get to d7 or d9, and is too fractal for my taste, but I wouldn't mind d2 or d3s. Paul's suggestions for calculating damage from STR+SIZ, and applying weapon damage as modifyer: OK, this works partly for Pendragon. Partly - I play a character with base damage 3d6 and virtually no chance to score damage except when charging on my horse. A system like this mustn't be too crass, and don't increase the number of dice involved! How to figure weapon boni? Only natural weapons would use the character base damage, and there are differences between fist, kick, head butt and bear hug damage. Crushing, slashing and piercing weapons each have their weapon specific base damage. Crushing weapons live on the momentum they gain, which is primarily dependent on the arch that they are swung (SIZ=arm length), piercing weapons don't rely too much on STR or momentum, but on very small areas of effect, i.e. maximum use of the thrusting force. Slashing weapons are somewhat standard weapons and may have the strongest influence of damage bonus. Any blow backed by full body momentum will transmit mor impulse, but not necessarily more damage. I don't see any way to throw all this into easy to play, realistic rules, so I'd rather stick with the sysrm as we know it. Damage bonus for skill: With thrown weapons and bows, a lot of impulse (i.e. speed) depends on how effectively you use your arms (in case of bows presumed that the bow is optimized to you, which I would assume for all bows brought in as starting equipment as well as all bows bought from a reasonably skilled bowyer). I have begun archery five years ago, and really had difficulties to shoot more than five arrows without tiring when I begun. Now I begin to look for a yet stronger bow. I don't think that I've gained STR over the years, but I certainly gained skill. My few encounters with the art of hacking and slashing - a few Escrima training hours - taught me that optimal use of body weight makes up for more damage than brute strength. Also here I'd propose that highly skilled characters inflict more damage than beginners. (I'd say that's the secret behind Bladesharp and the like...) What do you think? Should we build up damage bonus as a skill? Or along with weapon skill? Or should we apply the RQ3 Martial Arts concept to all combat actions (maybe only doubling the damage bonus/adding the damage for fist/something like that)? -- -- Joerg Baumgartner joe@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA18702; Tue, 15 Jun 93 09:37:08 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA22229; Tue, 15 Jun 93 10:36:57 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Tue, 15 Jun 93 10:37:07 EDT From: "Loren J. Miller" To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: RQ Lite ideas Date: 15 Jun 1993 10:33:27 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <1A981811AD6@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Announcing the RQ Lite project for core RQ rules. Let's brainstorm the simplest possible version of RQ. If you have anything to add, send it in! I'm afraid my proposals are rather sketchy and may be cryptic too. STATS Str - w SIZ determines damage bonus, w CON determines fatigue, strength roll Con - w SIZ determines hit points, w STR determines fatigue, health roll Siz - w STR determines damage bonus, w CON determines hit points, w DEX determines strike ranks Int - determines experience bonus for all skills, determines base for lores, knowledge roll Pow - determines magic strength and magic points and base for magic, luck roll Dex - w SIZ determines strike rank or other ordering scheme, determines base for agility and dexterity Cha - determines discounts and base for interpersonal skills, reaction roll SKILLS Physical skills. Base = DEX Lores. Base = INT Magic skills. Base = POW Social skills. Base = CHA Beginning %-age for a skill equals Easy skills Base x 2 Medium skills Base x 1 Hard skills Base / 2 Very Hard skills = 0 Cultural skills modify current skill, but not beginning %-age which should be consistent from person to person Experience Check marks as usual in RQ Roll for up to 5 or 10 (GM's preference) of skill increases at end of session/adventure To do this roll d100 to fail, adding beginning %-age and INT-10 to the roll. Yes, INT is doubly helpful with Lores. Add +1d8% to skill Training One week, paying for instructor's time. At end can make an experience roll. See above. Only get improvement if instructor is superior, or if adjusted roll was over 100 COMBAT RULES Keep SR (I like them) Hit Locations, RQ2 style is simpler, should go in RQ Lite RQ4 fatigue rules RQ2 criticals RQ4 special results, but mash them into a single table and let anybody use them. Avoid skill proliferation. RQ2 style armor Lose Hex grids. Should be able to track all maneuvers mentally. Maneuver. Use a DEXx5 roll instead. Alternately, replace individual weapon skills with a warfare skill that handles general combat skills and offer weapon lores that act as complementary skills to warfare. Then use warfare instead of maneuver in appropriate situations. SORCERY None Eventually publish a D&D style sorcery system, with zillions of spells of different levels. SPIRIT MAGIC No skill roll needed. It's "magic"! Failures here just slow down play, especially in combat, and combat is already slow enough from SRs, hit locations, and especially from maneuvering around. INT limit to spells known CHA limit to spirits kept Resistance table for all POW battles, both magic and spirit battles DIVINE MAGIC No skill roll needed (95%? be serious) whoah, +++++++++++++++++++++++23 Loren Miller internet: MILLERL@wharton.upenn.edu S sign lists littles what wetland received in phire bonuse --1M Monkeys  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA21365; Tue, 15 Jun 93 10:45:12 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25322; Tue, 15 Jun 93 11:45:05 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Tue, 15 Jun 93 11:45:10 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: EQUIPMENT - ARMOR Date: Tue, 15 Jun 93 11:45:17 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <1AAA4C413BD@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Someone mentioned a desire to remove Bezainted armor from the equipment lists because it is never used. In our campaign we use it as cult special armor for the merchant cults - Etyriesi use Lunars, Issariesi use shillings (Orlanthi silver coinage), clacks, or Issaries special tin money; Argari of course use bolgs, and Lokarnos use Wheels. (We play that wheels coined with Coin Wheel are enchanted gold with the hardness of bronze - you bite them to check if they're _hard_). People liked this in our campaign, I'd like to recommend it for RQ4. - Paul  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA23632; Tue, 15 Jun 93 11:29:01 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA27192; Tue, 15 Jun 93 12:28:56 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Tue, 15 Jun 93 12:29:01 EDT From: Carl Fink To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: ARMOR, DAMAGE & FATIGUE Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1993 12:28:36 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <1AB5FDF5C69@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Subject: ARMOR, DAMAGE & FATIGUE John Medway writes: J>2. Keep it simple and consistent. Modifiers always affect base chance of > success, and the Critcal/Special/Fumble numbers are derived from this > base. Yup. One reason behind the "add to the die roll" version was (is) that it doesn't require one to calculate a new critical and special number every five rounds. Sure, most of us can do 73/5 in our heads, but why should we alienate the math-deprived?  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA24877; Tue, 15 Jun 93 11:56:28 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA28130; Tue, 15 Jun 93 12:56:15 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Tue, 15 Jun 93 12:56:20 EDT From: mabeyke@batman.b11.ingr.com (boris) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: CHA, POW, DAMAGE BONUS, ETC Date: Tue, 15 Jun 93 11:58:24 CDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <1ABD3F80C42@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> A few random notes on various subjects over the last few days. 1. THE CASE FOR CHARISMA Actually, I'll start with the case against APP. It's the next thing to useless in every RQ game I've either played in or GMed. Male PCs will nearly always sell it short, (though female PCs will typically have more). And no matter how I stress it ("the priest doesn't seem to like you, he averts his gaze when talking to you, he seem to be spending much more time with Jannon the Handsome", etc) they will still do the same. Why? BECAUSE IT'S ONLY REAL EFFECT IN THE RULES IS A MEASLY SECONDARY ADD TO COMMUNICATION! (Sorry, I'll try not to shout anymore.) So, APP is broken. We need to either replace or discard it. I've played almost no RQ2 (and left that one campaign quickly because it was a munchkin romp). Consequently I don't know how well CHA was done in it. I've been told, many times however, that RQ2 handled CHA better than most games. Be that as it may, CHA doesn't have to be a roleplaying crutch. There is a need for something like it, if nothing else than as a base for social skills. Currently, INT is the primary base for these. I'm sorry, folks, but I know LOTS of really brainy people that don't have the first clue in social situations (myself included, except I'm not sure I meet the first criterion). And I know lots of clueless twits who breeze through social matters easily. Basing skills such as Bargain, Beg, Fast Talk, Orate, or Savoir Faire (which Custom, a knowledge skill, really doesn't cover) on INT is silly. CHA would be much better. Another thing, having some upper limit on bound spirits would be handy. CHA in RQ2 had that function, and it makes some sense. There is no such limit currently. So it seems to me there is a hole in RQ3 and in the current draft that CHA would fill. I wouldn't get rid of the communication skills, as Loren seems to be advocating (correct me if I'm wrong here). Elvis may not have been very good at acting, and Hitler may have been a lousy haggler, but that's just because they never tried to develop those skills. Keep the skills, and base them on, say, CHA + INT/2 + POW/2 - 20. Which leads me nicely to point #2. 2. THE CASE FOR POW Yeah, I realize that POW goes up and down a lot. However, divorcing it completely from skills is a cure worse than the disease. I agree with Paul, if we remove POW from all skills but magic, what the hell ARE we measuring? How are we to have any clue to a real world analog to POW if all it's used for is to cast spells? I always saw POW as much more than just the amount of magical energy someone could use. It's also Willpower, Drive, Luck, and many other things. As such, it should be a factor into many skills. It wouldn't bother me a lot if it were a secondary add in nearly everything, I see it as that encompassing. That said, what would be a cure for the problem of refiguring skills each time POW changes? Well, what we have always done is ignore it. Skill bonuses are added in when skills are learned. You use them when checking for skill increases, as a modifier to the die roll or the hours spent in training, but if POW (or STR or CON or anything else) goes up or down, the skills don't change. The only exception is from the effects of magic; Coordintation 4 would add 8 to all DEX skills, Suppress INT 5 would subtract 5 from all INT skills. But that is as much due to the nature of the magic as anything else, IMO. This fix very simply eliminates the problem, and allows POW to add it's influence where it should. I also like Paul's suggestion of making maximum POW based on original POW. This will add more variation in characters, and tend cause players to devote more points to POW in point build games. Many times I've seen people drop their POW 2-3 points below what they want, to raise another characteristic, knowing they would recover it in pregame experience. Basing max on original would tend to limit such behavior. BTW, I do like the idea of balancing each skill category in regards to characteristic modifiers. This fixes something I was always dissatisfied about in RQ3. 3. DAMAGE BONUS I also would like to see damage more as in Pendragon (or GURPS) with each character having a base damage and each weapon modifying it. But I won't lose any sleep if it stays the way it is in the 2.0 draft. I don't much care for a straight add, unless the player may roll 2d6 for each +7 add (and say 1d6 for each +4). I like variability. 4. FATIGUE I'll have to cast my vote against the die roll mods also. Making a lot of stupid mistakes is better modelled by a skill modifier, and lowering the autofailure level as someone suggested (sorry, I forgot who). Getting tired shouldn't make catastrophic mistakes 10-20 times more likely. It doesn't make sense, folks. 5. SPECIAL COMBAT OPTIONS These should either be made much easier to learn (say, no learning at all required) or much easier to perform (say, not requiring a special to succeed). As it is, very few will even bother. Tom Zunder's proposal in the 6-4 RQ Daily makes sense; allow skill masters to learn the maneuvers much like the ki skills in RQ:Nihon. Starting chance is less than the current case, but it can be improved much more easily. 6. SKILL VS SKILL Every scheme I've see so far involves additional rolls, and/or doing non trivial calculations (by non trivial, I mean something other than adding or subtracting. I personally don't have a problem with taking the nth derivitive of the skill, but some of my players are art-school types [hi Rebecca] so let's please keep this simple). The simplest method I've seen proposed was by (I think) Nick Brooke, who suggested doing it Pendragon style; if all rolls are of the same level of success, whoever rolled highest in that level wins. One roll, no math. Unfortunately it's somewhat counter RQ, where the low roll is always best. So, instead say whoever rolled the most under the level needed wins. One roll, some math, but only subtraction. Or even easier, though not as fair to those with high skills, whoever rolled lowest in the level of success. So if Clumsy Joe rolled an 05, barely a special of his skill of 25, and Graceful George rolls a 7, easily special in his skill of 89, Joe wins. But if Joe had rolled a 6, it would no longer be a special, and George would win. This is not as satisfying as the other, but is very simple. I wouldn't mind either one. But after the initial roll, to divide the skills by 10 and compare with another roll on the resistance table? A bit too complicated, IMO. Well, that's all for now. Bye. ---- (*) ZZ [] (.) @ e K| o8- |> oK <>< )o 3 8 <| How sharper than a serpent's tooth is my Truespeared pike. Yelmic proverb. Boris |><| +- (| >- .: K * =|= <- (O) ( ) (o) (|) X-  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA24877; Tue, 15 Jun 93 11:56:28 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA28130; Tue, 15 Jun 93 12:56:15 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Tue, 15 Jun 93 12:56:20 EDT From: mabeyke@batman.b11.ingr.com (boris) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: CHA, POW, DAMAGE BONUS, ETC Date: Tue, 15 Jun 93 11:58:24 CDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <1ABD3F80C42@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> A few random notes on various subjects over the last few days. 1. THE CASE FOR CHARISMA Actually, I'll start with the case against APP. It's the next thing to useless in every RQ game I've either played in or GMed. Male PCs will nearly always sell it short, (though female PCs will typically have more). And no matter how I stress it ("the priest doesn't seem to like you, he averts his gaze when talking to you, he seem to be spending much more time with Jannon the Handsome", etc) they will still do the same. Why? BECAUSE IT'S ONLY REAL EFFECT IN THE RULES IS A MEASLY SECONDARY ADD TO COMMUNICATION! (Sorry, I'll try not to shout anymore.) So, APP is broken. We need to either replace or discard it. I've played almost no RQ2 (and left that one campaign quickly because it was a munchkin romp). Consequently I don't know how well CHA was done in it. I've been told, many times however, that RQ2 handled CHA better than most games. Be that as it may, CHA doesn't have to be a roleplaying crutch. There is a need for something like it, if nothing else than as a base for social skills. Currently, INT is the primary base for these. I'm sorry, folks, but I know LOTS of really brainy people that don't have the first clue in social situations (myself included, except I'm not sure I meet the first criterion). And I know lots of clueless twits who breeze through social matters easily. Basing skills such as Bargain, Beg, Fast Talk, Orate, or Savoir Faire (which Custom, a knowledge skill, really doesn't cover) on INT is silly. CHA would be much better. Another thing, having some upper limit on bound spirits would be handy. CHA in RQ2 had that function, and it makes some sense. There is no such limit currently. So it seems to me there is a hole in RQ3 and in the current draft that CHA would fill. I wouldn't get rid of the communication skills, as Loren seems to be advocating (correct me if I'm wrong here). Elvis may not have been very good at acting, and Hitler may have been a lousy haggler, but that's just because they never tried to develop those skills. Keep the skills, and base them on, say, CHA + INT/2 + POW/2 - 20. Which leads me nicely to point #2. 2. THE CASE FOR POW Yeah, I realize that POW goes up and down a lot. However, divorcing it completely from skills is a cure worse than the disease. I agree with Paul, if we remove POW from all skills but magic, what the hell ARE we measuring? How are we to have any clue to a real world analog to POW if all it's used for is to cast spells? I always saw POW as much more than just the amount of magical energy someone could use. It's also Willpower, Drive, Luck, and many other things. As such, it should be a factor into many skills. It wouldn't bother me a lot if it were a secondary add in nearly everything, I see it as that encompassing. That said, what would be a cure for the problem of refiguring skills each time POW changes? Well, what we have always done is ignore it. Skill bonuses are added in when skills are learned. You use them when checking for skill increases, as a modifier to the die roll or the hours spent in training, but if POW (or STR or CON or anything else) goes up or down, the skills don't change. The only exception is from the effects of magic; Coordintation 4 would add 8 to all DEX skills, Suppress INT 5 would subtract 5 from all INT skills. But that is as much due to the nature of the magic as anything else, IMO. This fix very simply eliminates the problem, and allows POW to add it's influence where it should. I also like Paul's suggestion of making maximum POW based on original POW. This will add more variation in characters, and tend cause players to devote more points to POW in point build games. Many times I've seen people drop their POW 2-3 points below what they want, to raise another characteristic, knowing they would recover it in pregame experience. Basing max on original would tend to limit such behavior. BTW, I do like the idea of balancing each skill category in regards to characteristic modifiers. This fixes something I was always dissatisfied about in RQ3. 3. DAMAGE BONUS I also would like to see damage more as in Pendragon (or GURPS) with each character having a base damage and each weapon modifying it. But I won't lose any sleep if it stays the way it is in the 2.0 draft. I don't much care for a straight add, unless the player may roll 2d6 for each +7 add (and say 1d6 for each +4). I like variability. 4. FATIGUE I'll have to cast my vote against the die roll mods also. Making a lot of stupid mistakes is better modelled by a skill modifier, and lowering the autofailure level as someone suggested (sorry, I forgot who). Getting tired shouldn't make catastrophic mistakes 10-20 times more likely. It doesn't make sense, folks. 5. SPECIAL COMBAT OPTIONS These should either be made much easier to learn (say, no learning at all required) or much easier to perform (say, not requiring a special to succeed). As it is, very few will even bother. Tom Zunder's proposal in the 6-4 RQ Daily makes sense; allow skill masters to learn the maneuvers much like the ki skills in RQ:Nihon. Starting chance is less than the current case, but it can be improved much more easily. 6. SKILL VS SKILL Every scheme I've see so far involves additional rolls, and/or doing non trivial calculations (by non trivial, I mean something other than adding or subtracting. I personally don't have a problem with taking the nth derivitive of the skill, but some of my players are art-school types [hi Rebecca] so let's please keep this simple). The simplest method I've seen proposed was by (I think) Nick Brooke, who suggested doing it Pendragon style; if all rolls are of the same level of success, whoever rolled highest in that level wins. One roll, no math. Unfortunately it's somewhat counter RQ, where the low roll is always best. So, instead say whoever rolled the most under the level needed wins. One roll, some math, but only subtraction. Or even easier, though not as fair to those with high skills, whoever rolled lowest in the level of success. So if Clumsy Joe rolled an 05, barely a special of his skill of 25, and Graceful George rolls a 7, easily special in his skill of 89, Joe wins. But if Joe had rolled a 6, it would no longer be a special, and George would win. This is not as satisfying as the other, but is very simple. I wouldn't mind either one. But after the initial roll, to divide the skills by 10 and compare with another roll on the resistance table? A bit too complicated, IMO. Well, that's all for now. Bye. ---- (*) ZZ [] (.) @ e K| o8- |> oK <>< )o 3 8 <| How sharper than a serpent's tooth is my Truespeared pike. Yelmic proverb. Boris |><| +- (| >- .: K * =|= <- (O) ( ) (o) (|) X-  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA26067; Tue, 15 Jun 93 12:26:35 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA29283; Tue, 15 Jun 93 13:26:31 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Tue, 15 Jun 93 13:26:34 EDT From: burt@ptltd.com (Burton Choinski) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: ARMOR, DAMAGE & FATIGUE Date: Tue, 15 Jun 93 13:22:51 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <1AC54B9160D@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Any reason why a "Die based" system can't be used? i.e. A special success is one where the die roll ends in 1 or 6. Crits are tougher, but basically, the die roll ends in 1, and the first die roll is even (0, 2, 4, 6, 8, etc). Fumbles are the inverse: die roll ends in 0 and the ten's digit is odd. (only on a failure). That is even faster. :) Just add modifiers to the base skill and plug away. -- Burton  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA07258; Mon, 14 Jun 93 22:18:26 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA10998; Mon, 14 Jun 93 23:18:17 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 14 Jun 93 23:18:27 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: DAMAGE BONUSES Date: Tue, 15 Jun 93 13:17:22 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <19E31D542CB@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Re: OJ's simplified damage bonus table The problem with this table is IMO that it reduces the effect of size and strength as compared to RQIII's rolled table. A rolled 1d6 gives an average of 3.5, sure: but it can generate a 6. It is the ability of a high damage bonus to roll a lot of damage that gives its real effect, espacially when fighting large monsters or people in iron plate. That said, the new table is considerably simpler to implement, though as I've said before I think the damage bonus is a bit low. What is the best way to implement the advantages of large strength and size in RQ? The longer reach is in SR's, extra damage is there, HP to allow for extra damage. The only extra thing I can think of is implementing extra armour against natural weapons: I suspect I could punch the world heavyweight boxing champion until the cows came home without much effect. Let's see, to keep in line with Loren's suggestion that the standard male human has a zero: (STR+SIZ/4) - 6, round down, min 0. So: STR + SIZ Natural Armour 0-27 0 28-31 1 (Average of SIZ + STR at least 14) 32-35 2 ( " " " 16) 36-39 3 ( " " " 18) 40-43 4 How realistic does this seem to the martial artists and SCA types out there? I doubt I could kill a horse with any number of punches. Should this ever apply against other weapons ie should you get some of it if you are wearing armour on top? Sould I just forget I ever suggested it? One thing that has to be avoided is a situation like WFRP, where personal toughness was much more important than armour. Graeme.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA02448; Tue, 15 Jun 93 14:35:21 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA04952; Tue, 15 Jun 93 15:35:01 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Tue, 15 Jun 93 15:35:19 EDT From: kokko@eemeli.enet.dec.com (The Stars Are Right) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: ARMOR, DAMAGE & FATIGUE Date: Tue, 15 Jun 93 21:23:31 +0200 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <1AE79467139@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Natural armor for big types this feels right. think about Indy in the Raiders of Lost Ark trying to hit and hitting the big guy near the airplane with everything he has and the tank just smiles. It could also make those barroom brawls a little more like movie reality. Sorcery in RQ4 -------------- Are we trying to move too fast on this one. Lots of systems and lots of changes and arguing about the relative merits or lack of different systems. It really could be put on Cults of Prax type book to be published later. Getting it right would be more important than getting it to Rq4. Damage bonus ------------- someone suggested percentage damage bonus. this sounds right but maybe a bit on the low side Cultural biases --------------- Yes, please make some kind of chart which shows what kind of weapons and armor would a typical culture use. Charisma or App --------------- I do not see this as a major point. We basically ignore this characteristic. Mac maps --------- I would be interested in having good maps but color is perhaps not needed. Several pages of the main areas on or around Dragon Pass mapped to sufficient level of detail are sorely needed. Hannu Kokko  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA05558; Tue, 15 Jun 93 15:28:06 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA07145; Tue, 15 Jun 93 16:27:59 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Tue, 15 Jun 93 16:28:03 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: SORCERY Date: Tue, 15 Jun 93 16:27:58 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <1AF5BBE7720@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> SORCERY People have been saying that we could leave it for another book. I think that one of the main things that is broken is sorcery and that if it is to be fixed the new base system should go in RQ4. I will try to get out a new playtest version of our stuff this month. If that flies well and good. If not there are other people working on sorcery as well, perhaps something else will fly. RQ3 Sorcery is the most broken part of RQ3. If people want to run campaigns with sorcery and there is no system in place when RQIV comes out, they will use the broken RQ3 system and have to change later. I think it's best to do the major changes all at once if possible, like a heart, lung & liver transplant. The idea of a Sects of Malkioni book is a good one. Perhaps "Sorcerors of the West" would be a better title as this could include the Fonriti, people from God Forgot, Vadeli, etc., all ultimately stemming from the Brithini magical tradition. This could be really good, like Cults of Prax, and will need a lot of careful work. Another book would cover Eastern religions and sorcery. In Cults of Terror the Easterners were said to follow a fourth magical mode, the Mystical. I really don't know why this was dropped in RQ3; I thought it was a good idea. Of course it would be very hard to write a game system for mysticism, since reducing it to a mechanical set of rules could kill the flavor. Western sorcery, on the other hand, stems from a mechanical cause-and-effect system of thought, hence mechanical rules _capture_ the correct flavor. For the RQ4 release I would want to give a base system and a quick description of some schools, with at least one fully developed example. (Probably the Carmanian school). Then I see two possible organizations of subsequent material: 1. A Sects book as described above 2. Various books like "Religion and Culture of Fronela", "Religion and Culture of Ralios", etc. One could break these up into even smaller regions, after all Dragon Pass and (Inner) Prax are pretty small on this scale. These could come out with companion scenarios books - but not stuck in a boxed set. That way, people could buy "The Land of Seshnela" with or without "Seshnelan Adventures". The latter would more or less require the former, but not everyone will want it. Option (2) seems better to me because I am more likely to run a campaign where all the characters are from the Janube River valley than one where they are all sorcerors of various sects of Malkion! Although the "Council of Nicea" scenario could be good - murder, Tapping quarrels, argument, black sorcery to bring over a few crucial votes to your side... _____________________________ Sorcery questions: Here's a model for Vadeli sorcery, I invite comment. Their professional sorceror caste (the Blue Vadeli) were destroyed in the wars with the Brithini. The remaining Vadeli each learn one or two _fixed_ spells useful in their jobs. For example a marine might learn Evoke Flame with Range 200 m and Intensity 2 for ship to ship combat. A brown Vadeli (sailor) on the same ship might have as his 'trick' the ability to Form Wood with enough intensity to repair the planking of the ship. An admiral might have Telepathy with enough Range to send orders to the captains in his fleet. Thus the total magic available to the society is similar to that of other Western societies, but each person gets a trick they are good at instead of a few sorcerors (or priests or shamans) with most of the magic. I invite comment on this. There is a long time to think of this, it needn't go into the base rules, but if a Sea Pack is ever done then we'll need rules for the Vadeli. A few other societies might work like this also - in our Harangvat campaign any Harangvat who survived into his or her sixties was likely to become a weak shaman, and they had no great shamans. The belief was that old people had one foot already in the Otherworld. Same amount of magic as other primitives, more uniform distribution. Well, must go, more later... - Paul  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA06215; Tue, 15 Jun 93 15:41:53 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA07634; Tue, 15 Jun 93 16:39:53 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Tue, 15 Jun 93 16:41:44 EDT From: gharris@Jade.Tufts.EDU To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Some Sorcery Comments Date: Tue, 15 Jun 93 16:33:20 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <1AF78053092@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Well, I thought it was finally time to put together my thoughts on the direction sorcery will take, so I'm taking some time to put my thoughts down on magnetic media. First of all, I think that sorcery as delineated in RQIII is broken. THe example Paul Reilly gives of an apprentice sorceror casting oodles and oodles of Damage Boost 6 spells with long duration illustrates what I think is wrong with the system. However, that isn't the same as what Paul Reilly thinks; he points to Duration as a problem. Me, I think it's Free INT that's the big offender here. The main problem with frre int is that, even with no matrices or enchantments of any kind, the degree of your skill isn't the limiting factor, so an apprentice can cast as powerful a spell as a magus. Moreover, I don't think Range is a problem either. Paul Reilly mentions the problem of casting trnscontinental assassination spells via Sight Projection. Well, first of all you have to get the Sight Projection there. You can only cast it line of sight, which is maybe 10km max. Then you have to move it at 1 meter per SR (which translates to 3kph). If you want to cast a spell at someone 1000km away, you're going to have to concentrate on your sight projection for weeks, during which time you won't be able to see anything around you. Furthermore, if your Projected Sight has to pass over any magical barriers, or if your target has any companions who have some form of magical sight, then you won't be able to sneak up on them and will be vulnerable to many forms of magical attack. So Range doesn't really present an imbalance wrt Sense Projection. For any other spell except for Teleportation, range is restricted by line-of - sight, so you aren't going to get people casting Palsy at 16 kilometers. Thus, leaving Range as is won't cause any difficulties. We still have a problem with Duration, although it is fairly minor if we restrict manipulation to 1/10 skill (you'd need an 85% Duration to cast a week-long spell using the old table, and Duration is a hard skill. Moreover, the number of people who can even learn Duration is going to be restricted in most sorcery-using societies, so the number of people who can cast such spells will be very few; probably fewer than 1 in 10,000.) It is still possible for a sufficiently poweerful magus to keep hundreds of long-duration spells up all the time. This is clearly undesireable. The question is, what to do about it? The solution presented in the proposed draft of sorcery rules is even worse than the problem it means to cure. If you require a magus to sacrifice a point of power to get a long duration, but nevertheless temporary, spell, the net effect is that sorcerors will not cast these spells. In fact, with the restrictions placed on sorcery in the draft, it's difficult to see how any primarily-sorcery-using society is going to resist conquest by eight trollkin and a war beetle. (well, perhaps I exagerrate). The way I, and even many of the more theisticly biased on the list, see it, a permanent sacrifice of power should result in a permanent gain. Carl Fink correctly points out that there do exist other examples where permanent power is sacrificed for temporary effects, namely divine intervention and the blessings of Hrestoli saints. While this is true, it is something that bears closer examination. First, consider Divine Intervention: this is something that is very rarely done, except when the alternative is almost certain death. This is hardly an attractive route to power. Giving sorcerors the ability to do something that initiates only do when severely threatened hardly seems like much of an ability. Second, there are the blessings of the Hrestoli saints. Well, these haven't actually been published, so using them in an example is a bit dicey, but I'll let that pass, as I've got a copy of the material. In fact, for well over a year I've been playing in a Fronelan campaign were a majority of the PCs are Hrestoli. Some PCs have actually invoked the blessings of saints. Of course, the two most attractive blessings, Gerlant's and Paslac's, are the ones that give a *permanent* effect. The only non-permanent blessing that has been invoked is Talor's, by my character, and believe me, it won't happen again. There was even one character who maintained a personal POW of 19, because there was no good reason to gain a patron saint and invoke his/her blessing. So, when I say that sacrificing permanent power fro temporary effect is a hose job, divine intervention and saints' blessings don't refute this; they are hose jobs as well. So, what other means can we use to limit the number of long-duration spells that a magus can have up at one time? One suggestion that has been made is that the magic points used to cast a long duration spell do not regenerate while the spell is up, or that such spells require some sort of magic point maintainence cost. I dislike these ideas for a couple of reasons. First, it would be a bookkeeping nightmare. This alone would be enough to disqualify it. Second, it is counter to the way pretty much all other magic works in RQ. Generally, you fuel a spell with magic points, cast it, and it is done. Except for active spells, a cast spell is a separate entity from the caster (much to the consternation of those who want others to cast a healing spell on them, but have countermagic up). There doesn't seem any good rationalization for changing this for sorcery. Another thought was that the magic points used to manipulate a spell must be a magus' personal magic points. Again, there is no good rationalization for this. Magic points act as fuel in spirit (and divine, where applicable) magic. Sorcery is much more mechanical in nature, so this certainly shouldn't change. A magic point is a magic point is a magic point. Similarly, all the various suggections that sorcerors be restricted from using various magic point batteries and storage devices are equally difficult to justify, and are unnecessarily crippling for sorcerors (some theistic bias is showing through on the part of many members of the list). So, we have to look elsewhere. The first really good suggestion I saw fro this was to make exponential duration a ritual, requiring an hour per point of magic in the spell. To me, this seems an excellent and justifiable mechanic. It doesn't really go counter to anything we know about sorcery-users, and it prevents a magus from casting the oodles and oodles of spells, since even an intensity-1, week- long spell will take a full day to cast. Most powerful sorcerors have better things to do with their time than keeping the local constabulary supplied with Damage Boost 6s, and that's *all* he'd be able to do, if that. Since to really be able to cast many long duration spells, a magus would need a Duration well over 100%, as well as similarly high levels in the skills involved, we won't have that problem too often. This is the mechanic I would prefer. Secondly, there is Paul Reilly's suggestion of a sorceror's Twin, that is, a fetch-like "being" to which the magus can give permanent Pow, and this Pow somehow limits the number or power of long-duration spells a magus can keep up. This is a good mechanic in a number of ways: it gives sorcerors a gradual means of increasing in power by allowing them to devote their personal energies to their magic; it doesn't have a threshold where the magus suddenly is able to do something much much more than before; and it is consistent with the ways in which priests and shamans increase in strength, that is, by the sacrifice of permanent power for a permanent increase in ability. The question is, how will a Twin work? A number of suggestions have been made in this area, and I'll try to address them separately. First, how will a Twin allow a sorceror to maintain spells and how will doing so restrict him otherwise? There are two basic options I see here: you can have a magus maintain a number of spells up to the amount of pow in his Twin, or you can have a magus maintain spells with total intensity up to the amount of pow in his Twin. Clearly, the first is much more powerful. I think if the first option is taken, one might restrict a magus to total manipulation of a spell based on his pow plus the unused pow of the Twin. However, this is unlikely to be much of a restriction, since the limit of skill in spell divided by ten is much more likely to be the bottleneck. You could have the limit be personal pow plus Twin's pow divided by some number, but I think that's an ugly mechanic. However, I would say that the magus must maintain sufficient magic points in his Twin to equal the spells (or intensity of spells) maintained, similarly to how a shaman must maintain magic points in his fetch to keep spirits bound. Overall, I think I would lean toward the latter option, that is, limit the sorceror to a total intensity of constant spells no greater than the pow of his Twin. How would this affect other skills? I would think that spells maintained by the twin would last indefinitely, and would have whatever range and intensity (and multispell, which becomes very useful under these rules [but that's okay, it's now a Very Hard and Rare skill]) it had when cast. Duration would now only have linear effect, and any number of spells can be cast that do not need to be maintained by the Twin; these spells would have normal range, duration and effect. I would say that if a spell maintained by the Twin is cast on an object, and that object moves out of the range of the spell from the twin, the spell is broken. So, what would the other effects of a Twin be? I don't think very many limitations should be placed on a magus' Twin. It is already much less powerful that a fetch, as it cannot act for the magus and cannot move about. The idea of requiring the magus to follow vows or geasa, or to meditate to maintain the Twin is not very much in keeping with the philosophy of sorcery, that is, it is the manipulation of natural energies and the Twin is the magus' natural energies harnessed and controlled. If anything, a magus would have less need to modify his behaviour than would a shaman to maintain a fetch. This is not to say that some *cultures* wouldn't necessarily requires vows of their sorcerors who serve priestly functions; but these restrictions should be societal, rather than magical in nature. Furthermore, I don't think it's reasonable that possession of a Twin would be at all discernable to mundanes. A normal person cannot tell be looking that a shaman has a 60-point fetch, or that a Storm Voice knows Cloud Call 20. Why should they be able to tell that a magus has a twin? The presence of a Twin would of course be readily apparent to anyone with any sort of magical vision (including a limited form of Mystic Vision [say intensity 1] that would go along with having a Twin). I also strongly dislike the idea that a Twin bound into an object or creature could be lost or destroyed. It may be unusable until it can be bound into another creature, or another object enchanted, but it shouldn't result in anything more than an inconvenience for the magus in question. Well, that's pretty much it for my thoughts on the direction sorcery should go. Overall, I feel there are a couple of good ideas out there, neither of which unfortunately is currently in the rules, but that we need to be careful of a couple of things: one, there is a *strong* theistic bias among the members of the list, probably because of the strong theistic bias of much of the published material, so people seem to be very enthusiastic about placing limitations and disadvantages on sorcery, far more so than is desirable; two (and this is in some way related), people are tending to give sorcery attributes that should remain cultural. Sorcery itself is a very mechanistic system, and shouldn't require a lot of mystical mumbo-jumbo like vows and geasa and such to work. In fact, many of these should have *no effect* on sorcery. Think about it: what are you making a vow too? The power of sorcery doesn't come from some god or spirit. -- gharris@jade.tufts.edu George W. Harris "He'd kill us if he had the chance." Dept. of Mathematics Tufts University The Conversation  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA09041; Tue, 15 Jun 93 16:48:51 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA10082; Tue, 15 Jun 93 17:46:50 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Tue, 15 Jun 93 17:48:48 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: SPECIAL DAMAGE Date: Tue, 15 Jun 93 17:46:53 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <1B0AC15773C@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Special Hits: We use: Standard Impales Slash: Double Damage AFTER Armor Rationale: It's easier to chop through meat than chainmail. Experiments with pig carcasses show this. Also, historically the use of the sword dropped down with the introduction of Renaissance armors; concentrated force weapons like the warhammer and bec de corbin came in. Crush: Double damage bonus. Well, must go... paul  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA19909; Tue, 15 Jun 93 10:09:24 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA23740; Tue, 15 Jun 93 11:09:19 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Tue, 15 Jun 93 11:09:24 EDT From: apardon@vub.ac.be (Antoon Pardon) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Skill vs Skill -- Combat Date: Tue, 15 Jun 93 17:06:24 MDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <1AA0C1842CF@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> I have already seen a few suggestion regarging skill vs skill contests. Without going into which of them may be the best among them I was wondering if it would be a good idea to resolve combat in the same way. With one's attack put against the opponents parry/defense and vice versa. I think this idea could be extended to virtually include all skill resolvements. Instead of applying a modifier to a skill you would have to compete against a "skill" with a higer value. For speeding up play skills like obscureness for plants could be rolled in advance. Or you could just take the value of the average roll. -- ======================================================================== Antoon Pardon Brussels Free University Computing Centre 02/650.37.16 ========================================================================  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA26473; Wed, 16 Jun 93 05:14:52 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA22641; Wed, 16 Jun 93 06:14:39 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 16 Jun 93 6:14:50 EDT From: joe@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: CHA, POW, DAMAGE BONUS, ETC Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1993 02:10:08 MEZ Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <1BD229C1841@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Boris writes: > 1. THE CASE FOR CHARISMA > I'm sorry, folks, but I know LOTS of really brainy people that don't have > the first clue in social situations (myself included, except I'm not sure > I meet the first criterion). And I know lots of clueless twits who breeze > through social matters easily. Basing skills such as Bargain, Beg, Fast > Talk, Orate, or Savoir Faire (which Custom, a knowledge skill, really > doesn't cover) on INT is silly. CHA would be much better. Another thing, > having some upper limit on bound spirits would be handy. CHA in RQ2 had > that function, and it makes some sense. There is no such limit currently. > So it seems to me there is a hole in RQ3 and in the current draft that > CHA would fill. I wouldn't get rid of the communication skills, as Loren > seems to be advocating (correct me if I'm wrong here). Elvis may not have > been very good at acting, and Hitler may have been a lousy haggler, but > that's just because they never tried to develop those skills. Keep the > skills, and base them on, say, CHA + INT/2 + POW/2 - 20. Which leads me > nicely to point #2. All this makes a lot off sense to me. I'd back this in conjunction with the skill (Craft?) appearance. Give most women a higher cultural base chance on it (except in Esrolia or Trowjang), and we have APP in new appearance. > 2. THE CASE FOR POW > Yeah, I realize that POW goes up and down a lot. However, divorcing it > completely from skills is a cure worse than the disease. I agree with > Paul, if we remove POW from all skills but magic, what the hell ARE we > measuring? How are we to have any clue to a real world analog to POW if > all it's used for is to cast spells? I always saw POW as much more than > just the amount of magical energy someone could use. It's also Willpower, > Drive, Luck, and many other things. As such, it should be a factor into > many skills. It wouldn't bother me a lot if it were a secondary add in > nearly everything, I see it as that encompassing. This only leads to discarding of low POW characters, since those won't make it anywhere in Gloranthan society. Don't include POW everywhere, and then exclude unlucky players' characters from everythingwhere POW is important. The POW fixes Paul advocates would include POW even in attack skill. I always figured that "luck" is expressed by rolling dice, and that "skill" is represented by the statistical chances. > That said, what would be a cure for the problem of refiguring skills each > time POW changes? Well, what we have always done is ignore it. Skill > bonuses are added in when skills are learned. You use them when checking > for skill increases, as a modifier to the die roll or the hours spent in > training, but if POW (or STR or CON or anything else) goes up or down, the > skills don't change. The only exception is from the effects of magic; > Coordintation 4 would add 8 to all DEX skills, Suppress INT 5 would > subtract 5 from all INT skills. But that is as much due to the nature of > the magic as anything else, IMO. This fix very simply eliminates the > problem, and allows POW to add it's influence where it should. An even easier fix: Describe exactly how Coordination and like spells influence skill categories, and what the heck, make each 2 points of Strength plus 1d4 on damage. Or call them direclty like the skill categories. This is a rewrite, isn't it? No great change, a few new names, and keep the old ones as optionals, and everybody is happy. > I also like Paul's suggestion of making maximum POW based on original POW. > This will add more variation in characters, and tend cause players to > devote more points to POW in point build games. Many times I've seen > people drop their POW 2-3 points below what they want, to raise another > characteristic, knowing they would recover it in pregame experience. > Basing max on original would tend to limit such behavior. Just explicitly forbid that praxis, and keep things as they are. Else you get born priests as well as born losers, and almost nobody likes to play the latter. Rather let me play a slave than a character damned to inactivity because of low initial and thereby permanently low POW! > BTW, I do like the idea of balancing each skill category in regards to > characteristic modifiers. This fixes something I was always dissatisfied > about in RQ3. > 4. FATIGUE > I'll have to cast my vote against the die roll mods also. Making a lot of > stupid mistakes is better modelled by a skill modifier, and lowering the > autofailure level as someone suggested (sorry, I forgot who). Getting > tired shouldn't make catastrophic mistakes 10-20 times more likely. It > doesn't make sense, folks. I liked the autofail increase coupled to chance of success decrease. And don't tell me you cannot calculate specials or crits for 20% mali - you can perfectly well for combat boni and mali. > 5. SPECIAL COMBAT OPTIONS > These should either be made much easier to learn (say, no learning at all > required) or much easier to perform (say, not requiring a special to > succeed). As it is, very few will even bother. Tom Zunder's proposal > in the 6-4 RQ Daily makes sense; allow skill masters to learn the > maneuvers much like the ki skills in RQ:Nihon. Starting chance is less > than the current case, but it can be improved much more easily. I support this, but maybe use the RQ3 martial arts mechanic instead: a separate skill, either with increased difficulty, or without experience rolls. Don't involve MP expenses! > 6. SKILL VS SKILL > Every scheme I've see so far involves additional rolls, and/or doing non > trivial calculations (by non trivial, I mean something other than adding > or subtracting. I personally don't have a problem with taking the nth > derivitive of the skill, but some of my players are art-school types [hi > Rebecca] so let's please keep this simple). > > The simplest method I've seen proposed was by (I think) Nick Brooke, who > suggested doing it Pendragon style; if all rolls are of the same level of > success, whoever rolled highest in that level wins. One roll, no math. > Unfortunately it's somewhat counter RQ, where the low roll is always best. > So, instead say whoever rolled the most under the level needed wins. One > roll, some math, but only subtraction. Or even easier, though not as fair > to those with high skills, whoever rolled lowest in the level of success. > So if Clumsy Joe rolled an 05, barely a special of his skill of 25, and > Graceful George rolls a 7, easily special in his skill of 89, Joe wins. > But if Joe had rolled a 6, it would no longer be a special, and George > would win. This is not as satisfying as the other, but is very simple. > I wouldn't mind either one. But after the initial roll, to divide the > skills by 10 and compare with another roll on the resistance table? A bit > too complicated, IMO. I'd say stick with th eresistance roll, but do something about the resistance table. It's too linear for my taste. I'm not quite convinced about the exponential character of characteristics, and even less when it comes to comparing skills. So delinearize the table, and make it a table worth including, or better an algorithm easy to calculate. Any mathematical genius on board? I couldn't think of the perfect solution to this yet. -- -- Joerg Baumgartner joe@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA13838; Tue, 15 Jun 93 05:12:42 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA15878; Tue, 15 Jun 93 06:12:40 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Tue, 15 Jun 93 6:12:42 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: DAMAGE BONUSES (Addendum) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 93 20:11:56 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <1A51A4E4150@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Re-reading my suggestion for natural armour based on SIZ + STR, I realized that I hadn't clearly stated what I meant ny it being natural weapons: I meant against punches, kicks etc, not claws, teeth, firy breaths etc. It might still count against those if the person was wearing armour as well: you only get the natural armour points equal to the armour you are wearing. On second thoughts it would be simpler to use OJ's damage bonus table as natural armour as well ie +2 damage = 2 points natural armour. The formula is (SIZ + STR)/5 - 5 round up, I think. Why do I think Size and Strength are underrated in RQ? I've been playing a size 18 character for a year now (Orlvald Grimsson, styled "Ice-eyes", my Humakti), and I haven't noticed any great advantages in combat compared to the rest of the party, the largest of whom is Size 14 (the average size of the party, excluding my character, is about size 12). Extra damage bonus is OK, sure, so is the +1 strike rank and 3-4 extra hit points, but these are offset by extra encumberance for armour and terrible modifiers for agility and stealth (My GM has the RQIV draft: he liked the new agility modifier, and adopted it, but didn't like the new stealth one). The poor agility mod is quite crippling in the long run as it cuts back experience increases. Most of what I've read about combat says that height, strength and mass give great advantages in combat, especially unarmed combat. I just don't see these advantages in the RQIII rules: the designers seem to have wanted to penalize size as much as reward it. From my reading of the RQIV draft, one of size's other advantages has gone: it is no longer the training limit for strength and con. Graeme Lindsell a.k.a gal502@huxley.anu.edu.au  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA20575; Tue, 15 Jun 93 23:01:02 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA17927; Wed, 16 Jun 93 00:00:46 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 16 Jun 93 0:00:57 EDT From: Ed Wallman To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: fatigue mod, skill result levels Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1993 23:01:03 -0500 (CDT) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <1B6E79E42D8@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> FATIGUE MODIFIER ADDED TO ROLL I must third (fourth? fifth?) the motion that adding to the roll is a bad precedence. Also, our playtesting found that more referrals to the fumble table were a real pain. RESULT LEVELS VS. RESULT LEVELS One problem is that RQ does not have many result levels to play with making ties very common. Draft 2.0 seems to be trying to correct this with the "botch" result suggestion. The "botch" seems to hard to calculate on the spur of the moment. I have always thought RQ should have the following result levels: HIGH 1/2 SPECIAL 1/5 CRITICAL 1/20 SUPERCRIT 1/50 (minimum 50% skill required) HYPERCRIT 1/100 (minimum 100% skill required) The high result could be mostly ignored except for opposed skills (where it would reduce the common ties). The super and and hyper results are there mostly for glitz, but future heroquesters would use them. (?) FINAL II CENTS Could we get rid of all Roman numerals in RQ? They are annoying. -Ed wallman@vax2.winona.msus.edu  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA20979; Tue, 15 Jun 93 23:19:49 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA18288; Wed, 16 Jun 93 00:19:41 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 16 Jun 93 0:19:47 EDT From: curtiss@netcom.com (Curtis Shenton) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: More Comments on Sorcery Comments Date: Tue, 15 Jun 93 21:20:07 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <1B738A0306E@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> > > (Replying to George Harris' reasoned discussion of sorcery) > > > Of the major changes to sorcery being promulgated on this list I would > prefer Paul's Twin idea if we were completely rewriting sorcery. It > has a mystical aspect that the purely skill based system lacks. The > 1 pt of Twin = 1 pt of maintained intensity would be too limiting > IMHO using the current 1 spell = 1 skill system, IMHO, but would > be fine for an area/rune based system. I'm really hoping sorcery get's rewritten. I know of no one who likes RQ3 sorcery. And while I'm sure that there are a few people out there who like the way RQ3 handles it I think they are by far the minority. Divine and spirit magic are fairly well entrenched, and they aren't all that bad. But for sorcery I say ignore the old rules and devise a system that is 1)Simple, 2)Versatile, 3)Interesting, and 4)Agrees with what we know of Gloranthan sorcery(in general rather than just Malkioni) > > The long duration=ritual is easier for a system which just modifies > the RQIII system, but even with skill limited manipulation it is > still capable of being exploited too easily. The 85% skill sorcerer > only has to produce a few duration enhancing matrices for his > favourite spells to be back in the selling 2 year damage boosting > business. > > I agree that the twin as currently described seems much less > valuable than a fetch in its ability and power. I think that > a sorcerer should be balanced against a shaman in terms of ability. > The shaman has the ability to get any spirit magic spell he wants > with little difficulty, can use his fetch to bind other spirit allies, > gets to use the fetch to store and cast spells. Since the sorcerer gets > to use his Twin, which is just as diffcult to produce, for less, I > think he should be able to produce a wider range of magical effects > without needing to learn the vast number of skills a RQIII/RQIVbeta > sorcerer to learn. I don't think the twin needs to be as powerfull as a fetch. All in all the twin/presence is less important that the spells it maintains. And spell for spell I expect sorcerors come out ahead. > > As for the Vows, I think people are just trying to put some more > colour into sorcerers. Paul has said that they are to be kept out > of his core rules: they are a cultural aspect. Personally, I would > like all magicians to have some "Aura" effects associated with their > power. I could see the sun being somehow brighter when a Yelm priest > is near, shadows being darker around the troll priestess, jokes > funnier around the trickster. I would prefer this to the magical > special effects that have been added in the RQIV draft for casting > spirit magic. If I wanted impressive visual effects, I'd be playing > Star Wars and give the players blasters! I think which vows a sorceror should take need to be a cultural aspect. But I think the concept of vows is worth inclusion for all sorcerors. Though maybe the word vows is too Malkionish. > > > Graeme Lindsell a.k.a gal502@huxley.anu.edu.au > -- Curtis Shenton curtiss@netcom.com internet & 4@3091 WWIVnet "At the GM's option, strategic nuclear weapons may be considered 'magical'"-From the CyberCthulhu rules in Interface  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA28501; Wed, 16 Jun 93 07:55:22 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25409; Wed, 16 Jun 93 08:55:16 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 16 Jun 93 8:55:20 EDT From: joe@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Graeme's Sorcery Comments, MAGIC Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1993 13:07:32 MEZ Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <1BFD0FC7749@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> > (Graeme replying to George Harris' reasoned discussion of sorcery) > I agree completely with your evaluation of RQIII sorcery, and > your points about the RQIV draft. When I have played a sorcerer, > the interesting part dealt with the long range/duration spells, > and the inherently different sorcery spells, with the strong > emphasis on the resistance tables and which needed lots of magic > points to become effective, but which were very powerful at those > intensities. > The RQIV draft attempts to play balance sorcerers by eliminating > those elements: long duration/range is made practically impossible, > and many of the spells are made to work similarly to spirit magic. > In a word: dull. The interesting parts of RQIII (I agree the powerful > aspects) are eliminated, and the dull parts (one skill per spell, lack > of a "magical aspect") are left in. I think most of the participants at this list favor the P&M sorcery system over the draft sorcery system. (If not, please state that explicitly! Even if this is not a democratic decision, I think the dev team will value a poll result!) If I'm right, then this ought to be our future base of discussion, if not, flame me. > I also agree that DI and saints are hose jobs. I happen to think that > one-use rune magic for initiates is also a hose job, giving very little > bang for the buck compared with enchantments, which is why I support some > sort of recoverable rune magic for them. I am proposing a possibility for a slow one-point-per High Holy Day-recovery for the lowest ramks in a cult, slowly increasing with cult rank, or in less organized cults (such as Storm Bull) along with achievements for the cult, thus making acolyte status not that dfferent from experienced initiate status. Of course there ought to be initiation rituals accompagnying these increases, or in case of Storm Bulls victory feasts held at the shrine or better at the Block. I'm currently writing an article for Free INT 5, due soon, ad might translate it and post it here, if requested. (plug, plug) > Of the major changes to sorcery being promulgated on this list I would > prefer Paul's Twin idea if we were completely rewriting sorcery. It > has a mystical aspect that the purely skill based system lacks. The > 1 pt of Twin = 1 pt of maintained intensity would be too limiting > IMHO using the current 1 spell = 1 skill system, IMHO, but would > be fine for an area/rune based system. This wouldn't take too much effort if we take a look at the really interesting spells in RQ3 sorcery (at least the most popular in my campaigns): Form/Set , Animate , . Why not make the Spell skill Form/Set, or Animate, and have as a magic lore skill ("true name" skill!?) necessary to produce the spell effect, and simultaneously as additional manipulation limit for Intensity? Also a good opportunity to encourage specialisation: Elements are at least very hard lores, groups of Substances (Wood, Ore) hard or preferably very hard, more specific substances hard (Copper, Iron, Oak wood) and very specific substances medium skills (Lunar coinage silver, laminated maple wood, ruby coloured glass). Similarly those spells dealing with (Dominate, Summon, Shapechange), (Enhance, Diminish, or Tap), or with (mainly Phantom, or specialized which allow perception skills to work specifically). > The long duration=ritual is easier for a system which just modifies > the RQIII system, but even with skill limited manipulation it is > still capable of being exploited too easily. The 85% skill sorcerer > only has to produce a few duration enhancing matrices for his > favourite spells to be back in the selling 2 year damage boosting > business. Simply forbid this by some added mechanic, e.g. that even with help of matrix duration the duration skill (multiplied by 1.5?) stays the upper limit, but points used there don't count against max manipulation limit. Or rather discard it in favor of the Twin maintenance (or the MP-regeneration maintenance) system. I think I detected a problem there: What about sorcerous spell matrices? Can anyone manipulate those with his learning-by-doing skill? Have these been playtested? > I agree that the twin as currently described seems much less > valuable than a fetch in its ability and power. I think that > a sorcerer should be balanced against a shaman in terms of ability. > The shaman has the ability to get any spirit magic spell he wants > with little difficulty, can use his fetch to bind other spirit allies, > gets to use the fetch to store and cast spells. Since the sorcerer gets > to use his Twin, which is just as diffcult to produce, for less, I > think he should be able to produce a wider range of magical effects > without needing to learn the vast number of skills a RQIII/RQIVbeta > sorcerer to learn. One main difference is the absence of the Bad man in the trial, which ought to decrease the value of the Twin, unless something equivalent is introduced. I mean, surviving ten rounds of Spirit combat against a POW 35 entity is an all-or-nothing situation. How is this going to be handled with the RQ4 spirit combat rules, BTW? No changes, the Shaman-to-be all-out defending? Has anybody playtested this? Another use of the twin might be one similar to the Godunya magic approach in GoG: Let one point of Twin POW be traded for one extra point of manipulation, and keep that inactive until the spell effect runs out. That way only the points exceeding the manipulation skill limit are tied to spells. Thoughts? > As for the Vows, I think people are just trying to put some more > colour into sorcerers. Paul has said that they are to be kept out > of his core rules: they are a cultural aspect. Maybe connect the vow with the worship rituals rather than with manipulation: Let a pious sorcerer who holds certain vows have access to some of the magical energy conducted in the service he leads, in the form of extra MP (treat similar to tapped MP). -- -- Joerg Baumgartner joe@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA03059; Wed, 16 Jun 93 09:59:19 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA03317; Wed, 16 Jun 93 10:47:38 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 16 Jun 93 10:53:30 EDT From: "Loren J. Miller" To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Fatigue rules proposal Date: 16 Jun 1993 10:44:12 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <1C1AFDD017F@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Though our playtesting indicated to me that the fatigue rules actually work without causing problems, I agree with the others that adding a new special case mechanic to RQ would be a bad idea. How does Fatigue work in the stories? 1. After fighting a while the hero gets tired 2. This tiredness makes him unable to try some attacks 3. This tiredness makes him unable to try some parries 4. This tiredness stops him from attempting tasks 5. By concentrating and using his willpower he can temporarily overcome fatigue This suggests to me that a change in the mechanic would be in order. Instead of going from tired to weary to exhausted to disabled do this. Fatigue level starts at 0 (chipper), and goes up by integers. Every 5 rounds of combat or running or other exertion fatigues you, adding one to fatigue level. You can still recover from fatigue by resting as under the current rules. 1. People who are fatigued get -10% to all physical skills per level of fatigue. 2. Whenever it would be nice for you to start something new while fatigued, you must overcome 5xFatigue with your current MP in order to do it instead of resting and catching your breath. Examples of such circumstances include: switching to a new opponent in a melee; pursue an opponent who just turned and ran; thank opponents for a good race; shout a battlecry to rally demoralized troops; etc. 3. By spending one MP and overcoming 5xFatigue with MP on the resistance table, you can recover one level of fatigue. This requires some concentration, but not enough to stop you from fighting or running for your life. whoah, +++++++++++++++++++++++23 Loren Miller internet: MILLERL@wharton.upenn.edu "Science" does not remove the terror of the gods.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA15972; Tue, 15 Jun 93 19:47:29 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA14271; Tue, 15 Jun 93 20:47:17 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Tue, 15 Jun 93 20:47:28 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: FATIGUE Date: Wed, 16 Jun 93 10:46:27 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <1B3AE1610F1@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Carl writes: > > John Medway writes: > > J>2. Keep it simple and consistent. Modifiers always affect base chance of > > success, and the Critcal/Special/Fumble numbers are derived from this > > base. > > Yup. One reason behind the "add to the die roll" version was > (is) that it doesn't require one to calculate a new critical > and special number every five rounds. Sure, most of us can do > 73/5 in our heads, but why should we alienate the math-deprived? > The add to the die roll system is very simple, I agree. The problem as I see it is that it is not compatible with the rest of the RQ modifier system. Try this example for Ron the Rune Lord, 125% sword attack: i) In battle with trolls, he has his leg cut from under him and has to fight from the ground (-20%), a troll priestess casts Dullblade 6 on his sword (-30%), and the Blindness on him (completely blind, -75%). Total modifier -125%. Rons chance of success 5%, special 1%, fumble 5% ii) Everything else working fine, Ron gets tired: +5 to roll. Chance of success 120%, chance of fumble 6%! The problem is that the two systems are in confict. If you want to rewrite the RQ resolution system to use die roll modifiers, go ahead, Pendragon and Rollmaster use systems where mods to skill and to die roll are identical, but I don't think using two conflicting systems is a wise addition to RQIV. I think this is the largest single change to the RQ system in the RQIV draft. Graeme Lindsell a.k.a gal502@huxley.anu.edu.au  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA05975; Wed, 16 Jun 93 11:02:22 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA06536; Wed, 16 Jun 93 12:02:14 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 16 Jun 93 12:02:21 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: CHA, POW, DAMAGE BONUS, ETC Date: Wed, 16 Jun 93 12:02:22 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <1C2EE7940AD@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Joerg has a bunch of good comments, I will respond: >The POW fixes Paul advocates would include POW even in attack skill. Uhh... no. I advocate POW in Parry and Agility (currently MUCH LOWER than attack, leading to the weird phenomenon of you big heroes having 200% Attack and 120% Parry, which means that the really great fighters have short, bloody fights. Wrong, defense should be at least even and maybe better than attack.) INT should remain the base for attack and manipulation skills. When I am fighting, my attacks are often based on plans (INT) but my defenses had BETTER be based on instinct (POW). This seems to go with what I observe about fighters in general. Martial arts, also. My full message was cut off by computer problems. My proposed mods are in fact the following , where 1/2 indicates secondary mod: Agility: DEX + POW + 1/2 STR - SIZ Communication: CHA (PRE, social intelligence, whatever) + 1/2 INT + 1/2 POW Knowledge: INT + at least 1/2 POW. POW gives power of concentration. High INT, low POW gives you a promising grad student without the willpower to study hard - I know Manipulation: DEX + INT + 1/2 STR (unchanged) Perception: POW + CON + 1/2 INT Or POW + INT + 1/2 CON. I like the former better, I have high INT but my Perception skills are not that good. CON means better senses, POW means more alert, INT is better interpretation. Since the listed Perception skills are for noticing something AT ALL and there are knowledge skills like Evaluate for interpreting information, I think INT really should be secondary. Things like poor hearing or myopia or astigmatism all get abstracted as low CON in this system, these have a big effect on Scan or Listen. Attack: DEX + INT + 1/2 STR (unchanged) Parry: DEX + POW + 1/2 STR (unchanged) Note that Attack and Parry are now balanced. Average INT is 13, POW tends to be stabilize around 14 (minmaxing gain rolls vs. usefulness of High POW) I have fought big and small people and small size is no advantage in parrying: I can reach OVER the top of a small person's block and hit them in the back. I am pretty big and have no real disadvantage parrying, in fact my greater reach allows me to get some advantages. Really big people should be a better missile target, however. - Paul >Or call them direclty like the skill categories. Thus an Agility spell adds to Agility Skills, a Stealth spell (projects 'don't notice me' to Stealth skills, etc.? I like this rather a lot. Have you tried this? Should these be 5% or 10% per point? Note we've got this already in one case : Comprehension, from Pamalt. It all depends on how you slice it. A Manipulation spell (helps with fine work) is at least as logical as a Coordination spell (helps with climbing, horse-riding, lock-picking, zither playing, etc.) The Manipulation spell might have a name like "Nimble Fingers" and be available to shamans, thief gods, and Donander. "Agility" would come from cults like Yinkin and his sidekick Orlanth. I think you should write these up and submit them for consideration for the next draft. They could be additions instead of replacements. If Pamalt can have Comprehension I really don't see why Yinkin can't have Agility or Catfoot. >Just explicitly forbid that praxis, and keep things as they are. Else you get >born priests as well as born losers, and almost nobody likes to play the >latter. Rather let me play a slave than a character damned to inactivity >because of low initial and thereby permanently low POW! A good point. If I were playing RQ in a universe like Middle-Earth or Mythic Scandinavia, I'd certainly want to have born priests because they are in-genre. What's in-genre for Glorantha is up to Greg, but sometimes it does seem like there are born priests - look at Jar-Eel or Argin Terror. You can say these are very special cases, but there seems to be a general principle that some people are just more magical than others, just as some people are stronger. If you changed the basic currency of power away from POW toward something more like Glory (from Pendragon) this would be OK. I liked the RQ2 division between the Rune Lord and Rune Priest tracks. Rune Lords gained power and skill in the mundane world, Rune Priests in the Otherworld. They had a higher POW gain roll, remember. This didn't really bother me at all. Rune Priests also had skill limitations, and there were real benefits to being a Rune Lord. ___________ > 4. FATIGUE I'm not too sure about the autofail mods any more. In the real world, experienced fighters learn to conserve energy and outlast their opponents as well as outfighting them. A person with 120% skill has worked hard on his fighting and should be able to outlast someone with 100% skill. In fact I'm inclined (at the moment) to say: Take away the 'Skill above 100% subtracts from opponent's Parry' rule. Use something like Steve Maurer's Success Levels. Let fights between supermen go on until luck makes one win (crits, fumbles) or until the fatigue modifiers bring the skills of one of them down below 95%. Now the better man wins. This recreates the psychology of wearing down the inexperienced opponent and creates a sense of panic in the guy who is getting tired. The die roll add does seem quite wrong to me; when I get really exhausted I'm not going to hit ANYONE for triple damage, more likely just stand there and get hit. Fumble chance should go up but straight skill mods seem about right. > The simplest method I've seen proposed was by (I think) Nick Brooke, who > suggested doing it Pendragon style; if all rolls are of the same level of > success, whoever rolled highest in that level wins. One roll, no math. > Unfortunately it's somewhat counter RQ, where the low roll is always best. > So, instead say whoever rolled the most under the level needed wins. One I suggested something like this: better success wins, but within the same success level high roll wins. This seems simple and involves no subtraction. Hector has a special 19, Achilles a special 20, Achilles wins. Little Ajax has a crit 4, Paris a normal 35, Little Ajax wins. This seems simple enough and also works well with Craft or Devise skills: a GM can write down a trap as having been set with a Special 10 and leave it at that. Using the subtraction system is more complicated. Similarly with Conceal, etc. I use this system in my game and no-one has complained. And it's instant: when a PC has a Special Scan 8 I know whether or not he beats my assassin's Sneak roll instantly, no computation involved, just a comparison. >I'd say stick with th eresistance roll, but do something about the resistance >table. It's too linear for my taste. I'm not quite convinced about the >exponential character of characteristics, and even less when it comes to I say, either make the characteristics explicitly exponential and keep the resistance table (I like it this way) or fix the resistance table (Joerg's way). Just make it consistent. I like the exponential characteristics because this fits in with human perceptions of things: there is a reason that sound intensity is measured in logarithmic decibels. Forces are also perceived logarithmically, and brightness: look at star magnitudes. Of course the description of things like Gift POW have to be changed since the POW 11 - POW 10 =/ POW 31 - POW 30. - Paul  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA20630; Tue, 15 Jun 93 23:03:07 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA17981; Wed, 16 Jun 93 00:02:59 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 16 Jun 93 0:03:05 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Some Sorcery Comments Date: Wed, 16 Jun 93 14:01:52 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <1B6F0D5034D@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> (Replying to George Harris' reasoned discussion of sorcery) I agree completely with your evaluation of RQIII sorcery, and your points about the RQIV draft. When I have played a sorcerer, the interesting part dealt with the long range/duration spells, and the inherently different sorcery spells, with the strong emphasis on the resistance tables and which needed lots of magic points to become effective, but which were very powerful at those intensities. The RQIV draft attempts to play balance sorcerers by eliminating those elements: long duration/range is made practically impossible, and many of the spells are made to work similarly to spirit magic. In a word: dull. The interesting parts of RQIII (I agree the powerful aspects) are eliminated, and the dull parts (one skill per spell, lack of a "magical aspect") are left in. I also agree that DI and saints are hose jobs. I happen to think that one-use rune magic for initiates is also a hose job, giving very little bang for the buck compared with enchantments, which is why I support some sort of recoverable rune magic for them. (A note in passing: does anyone know why a completely new mechanic was proposed for saints? They could easily have been treated as the usual RQ god, with one non-recoverable rune spell and the ability to give DI only in their areas ie Arkat could only give DI for fighting chaos. They seem to reach sainthood in much the same way polytheistic mortals become gods ie the Seven Mothers) Of the major changes to sorcery being promulgated on this list I would prefer Paul's Twin idea if we were completely rewriting sorcery. It has a mystical aspect that the purely skill based system lacks. The 1 pt of Twin = 1 pt of maintained intensity would be too limiting IMHO using the current 1 spell = 1 skill system, IMHO, but would be fine for an area/rune based system. The long duration=ritual is easier for a system which just modifies the RQIII system, but even with skill limited manipulation it is still capable of being exploited too easily. The 85% skill sorcerer only has to produce a few duration enhancing matrices for his favourite spells to be back in the selling 2 year damage boosting business. I agree that the twin as currently described seems much less valuable than a fetch in its ability and power. I think that a sorcerer should be balanced against a shaman in terms of ability. The shaman has the ability to get any spirit magic spell he wants with little difficulty, can use his fetch to bind other spirit allies, gets to use the fetch to store and cast spells. Since the sorcerer gets to use his Twin, which is just as diffcult to produce, for less, I think he should be able to produce a wider range of magical effects without needing to learn the vast number of skills a RQIII/RQIVbeta sorcerer to learn. As for the Vows, I think people are just trying to put some more colour into sorcerers. Paul has said that they are to be kept out of his core rules: they are a cultural aspect. Personally, I would like all magicians to have some "Aura" effects associated with their power. I could see the sun being somehow brighter when a Yelm priest is near, shadows being darker around the troll priestess, jokes funnier around the trickster. I would prefer this to the magical special effects that have been added in the RQIV draft for casting spirit magic. If I wanted impressive visual effects, I'd be playing Star Wars and give the players blasters! Graeme Lindsell a.k.a gal502@huxley.anu.edu.au  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA21744; Tue, 15 Jun 93 23:58:45 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA18786; Wed, 16 Jun 93 00:58:37 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 16 Jun 93 0:58:43 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: SORCERY AND MYSTICISM Date: Wed, 16 Jun 93 14:57:51 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <1B7DEA525D3@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Re: the easterners and mysticism. I wonder if the ki skills in the Ninja pack were an early attempt to do this. To attach magical powers to high skills based on ones insight into reality seems a fair system. It can produces the kind of Kralorela I would like to see: sword masters cutting people up at a distance, guided throwing knives, and especially people making half-mile leaps! Have I watched too many Hong Kong Fantasy Martial Arts Films? No, you can't watch too many Hong Kong Fantasy Martial Arts Films! Seriously, fantasy martial arts films are the closest things to eastern fantasy that are produced today. I'd like to see Kralorela as a setting to produce those kind of adventures, and I think an expanded ki skill system would be both workable and fun. Graeme Lindsell a.k.a gal502@huxley.anu.edu.au  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA23633; Wed, 16 Jun 93 18:14:04 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA24551; Wed, 16 Jun 93 19:12:44 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 16 Jun 93 19:14:01 EDT From: JOVANOVIC@CUCCFA.CCC.COLUMBIA.EDU To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: COMMENTS, TRAINING, MODIFIERS, DAMAGE BONUS Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1993 19:14:20 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <1CA1B1F6EB3@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Loren - Sorry, can't give you an exact release date on the next draft. Depends on Avalon Hill to a great extent. If I have the time I'll try to post a complete summary of what changes should be made based on playtester feedback - I'll keep posting various new ideas in the meantime. All - I'd appreciate comments on the following, which is a simpler version of the RQIII/RQIV training rules (and Copyright 1993 Oliver Jovanovic and Michael McGloin). It seems to simplify training, research and Instruct skill. Let me know what you think. This is part of a system which will suggest that characters divide their time for each week, season or year (as appropriate for the time scale of the campaign) among days spent on duties, training, practice, research and socializing. A typical week for a would be adventurer holding down a full time job in Pavis might be: 4 days of duties (job) 1 day of practice (a job related skill, such as Craft ) 1 day of training (weapons work with the local blademaster, costing a pretty penny). 1 day of socializing (going out with friends, talking to people). The segmentation into days is just an abstraction - in reality, the character would mix various parts of this into the way they spent each day. In the case of the character above, it simply means that they spend 4/7 of their free time on duties, 1/7 of their free time practicing, 1/7 of their free time training, and 1/7 of their free time socializing. Duties typically yield a salary or are required by a character's position in a cult or other organization, and may yield some slight benefits (free practice of duty related skills). Practice, research and training are dealt with below. Socializing yields friends and contacts. A character that does not spend one day a week socializing will have few or no friends or contacts. Most characters will typically have two or three friends or contacts (an exact number can be calculated by dividing Custom skill by 20 and multiplying this number by the number of days a week spent socializing - a character with 71% Custom skill that spends 2 days a week socializing would have 7 good friends or contacts). Generally the more powerful or useful the friend or contact, the less influence over them the character would have. TRAINING Days of training to increase a skill by = skill/10 = 1d6 for a Medium skill, 1d3 for a Hard skill and 2d6 for an Easy skill. Optional rule: Subtract skill bonus/10 from the days of training time required (this avoids penalizing characters with high bonuses). Training can be expensive, and may be difficult to obtain, particularly at higher skill levels. PRACTICE Practice is studying something on your own with the proper techniques, partners or equipment on hand, and takes twice as long as training (training time x2), but is generally more affordable and easier to arrange than training. RESEARCH Research is studying something on your own with little or no background or equipment on hand, and takes four times as long as training (training time x4), but costs little or nothing. A simplified chart: Days of Days of Days of training to practice to research to increase by increase by increase by Skill % 1 to 10 1 2 4 11 to 20 2 4 8 21 to 30 3 6 12 31 to 40 4 8 16 41 to 50 5 10 20 51 to 60 6 12 24 61 to 70 7 14 28 71 to 80 8 16 32 81 to 90 9 18 36 91 to 100 10 20 40 101 to 110 11 22 44 etc. Optional rule: Subtract 1 day of training time required for every 10% of skill bonus (to avoid penalizing characters with high skill bonuses). TEACHERS A teacher can normally train someone effectively that has a skill level equal to or lower than half theirs. If the students skill level is above half the teacher's but equal to or below the teachers skill, it counts as practice for the student. If the students skill level is greater than that of the teachers, it counts as research for the student. INSTRUCT SKILL Instruct skill enhances the effectiveness of a teacher. Add the teacher's Instruct skill to the skill they are teaching (not to exceed twice the level of the skill being taught) for the purposes of determining their ability to teach). Example: Arlia has a Scimitar attack skill of 68%, but no Instruct skill. She could effectively train someone with a Scimitar skill of 34% or below. Drill Sargent Carnifex, with a Scimitar attack skill of 71% and a Instruct skill of 85% could effectively train someone with a Scimitar skill of 71% or lower (half of 71+71 (not 71+85, as 71x2 is lower)). (Basically, this means that a competent teacher (with high Instruct skill) will be able to teach twice as effectively as an incompetent one, but eliminates the need to make Instruct rolls, which seems a significant simplification). Any comments? Characteristic modifiers - I kind of like Paul's idea of using Original POW to determine skill bonuses - the original POW roll determines whether you are fairly inobtrusive or have great presence, and would make a thief that later increased his POW a reasonable character to play. I disagree with the idea of letting Original POW affect the likelihood of POW gain, however - that would be far too unbalancing - in the long run, characters with low starting roll for POW would be dwarfed by those with a medium or high roll. POW just plays too vital a role in spell casting, magical attack, magical defense, spirit combat and cult progression. Even without this, the Original POW idea gives characters that start with a high original rolled POW some incentive to become magicians, since their magic bonus will be higher than that of other characters. Given the idea of changes from Original POW not affecting modifiers, what about the following set of modifiers: Agility Skills Category Modifier STR + DEX - SIZ - 10 Communication Skills Category Modifier INT/2 + Original POW/2 + APP - 20 Magic Skills Category Modifier Original POW + INT/2 + DEX/2 - 20 Manipulation Skills Category Modifier STR/2 + INT/2 + DEX - 20 Perception Skills Category Modifier INT + Original POW/2 + CON/2 - 20 Reasoning Skills Category Modifier INT + Original POW - 20 Stealth Skills Category Modifier DEX + INT - SIZ/2 - Original POW/2 -10 I would still retain a seperate category of Knowledge skills (skills that can't be increased by experience, but if these represent skills that are strictly learned, they really don't need a bonus in any case). Damage Bonus - It would be an added complication, but if we go with the point by point damage bonus system, something like half the damage bonus is your natural armor might work fairly well - humans would have one or two points at most, which sounds about right. With respect to highly skilled fighters doing additional damage - to a certain extent specials and criticals handle that already - however, one of the best ideas I've seen suggested for this was by Brandon Bryslawski, who suggested that characters be allowed to subtract from their chance to hit in exchange for doing extra damage - something like +1 damage for every 20% subtracted from your skill - this would let highly skilled fighters (such as a Rune Lord with 140% attack) do 2 or 3 extra points of damage per blow. Might make for a good optional rule. Oliver  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA00432; Wed, 16 Jun 93 23:11:08 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA00149; Thu, 17 Jun 93 00:11:02 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Thu, 17 Jun 93 0:11:06 EDT From: irishspy@aol.com To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: RQLite Date: Thu, 17 Jun 93 00:12:14 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <1CF13EA777F@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> >>=Loren >>Announcing the RQ Lite project for core RQ rules. Let's >>brainstorm the simplest possible version of RQ. I think this is a great idea! RQ can be a complex game. A "basic" version will help attract new users and let people play RQ who maybe don't wanna use *all* the rules. >>STATS (Stuff deleted) >> Cha - determines discounts and base for interpersonal skills, >> reaction roll Unlike a lot of people on this list apparently, I think there is a very great need for a "force of personality" Stat (call it what you will), and Loren shows the good uses of it: some people are not born actors! Many players know how their character would react in social situations, but don't know how or are clumsy at expressing it in "roleplay." In one of my old campaigns, I had a player who stuttered. It would have been mean of me to say to him that, since he couldn't speak elegantly, he fails at convincing the merchant to give him a discount. The Charisma score in that game system gave him a chance to pretend he could do something normally impossible for him. (And what else is roleplay for??) I like Loren's use of Charisma in RQLite and I cannot stress too strongly how important I believe it to be to keep some sort of "personality mechanics" in the game. {Much deleted} >>COMBAT RULES >>Keep >>SR (I like them) I can't agree -- if this is to be a simple version, just use DEX order in the combat round. When I started playing RQ, strike rank was the hardest thing for me to get straight >>SORCERY >>None >>Eventually publish a D&D style sorcery system, with zillions of >>spells of different levels. Why exclude sorcery? With this new version that's being bruited-about on the net, we should be able to find a Lite version to include. I like the 2nd part (regarding lotsa flashy-cool spells) though. In general, I really like the idea of having an RQLite. I think it'll help give the game broader appeal. --Anthony ecz5rar@mvs.oac.ucla.edu IrishSpy@aol.com Rune Chia Pet of Ernalda  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA00898; Wed, 16 Jun 93 23:28:59 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA00416; Thu, 17 Jun 93 00:28:55 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Thu, 17 Jun 93 0:28:57 EDT From: curtiss@netcom.com (Curtis Shenton) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RQLite Date: Wed, 16 Jun 93 21:29:11 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <1CF609D1266@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> > > >>=Loren > > >>Announcing the RQ Lite project for core RQ rules. Let's >>brainstorm the > simplest possible version of RQ. > I think this is a great idea! RQ can be a complex game. A "basic" > version will help attract new users and let people play RQ who maybe don't > wanna use *all* the rules. I'll second that. I always liked Stormbringer since it was sort of a simplified set of RQ mechanics. I'd liek to see something along the lines of GURPS with a Basic and advanced combat section. > > >>STATS > (Stuff deleted) > >> Cha - determines discounts and base for interpersonal skills, > >> reaction roll > Unlike a lot of people on this list apparently, I think there is a very > great need for a "force of personality" Stat (call it what you will), and > Loren shows the good uses of it: some people are not born actors! Many > players know how their character would react in social situations, but don't > know how or are clumsy at expressing it in "roleplay." In one of my old > campaigns, I had a player who stuttered. It would have been mean of me to > say to him that, since he couldn't speak elegantly, he fails at convincing > the merchant to give him a discount. The Charisma score in that game system > gave him a chance to pretend he could do something normally impossible for > him. (And what else is roleplay for??) I like Loren's use of Charisma in > RQLite and I cannot stress too strongly how important I believe it to be to > keep some sort of "personality mechanics" in the game. When I read this soemthing clicked and I've figured out what my big objection to charisma is. I hate tossing in appearance as well as all the other social interaction stuff. I would have no objection to CHA if appearance was seperate(maybe an APP skill as menioned earlier, with different types per culture? What's attractive to a troll is not what appeals to an elf) I like having a way to judge how socially skilled a PC is, I just hate CHA being a catchall name for all the factors. And I still think discounts should be based on how high your bargain skill is. :) > > {Much deleted} > > >>COMBAT RULES > >>Keep > >>SR (I like them) > I can't agree -- if this is to be a simple version, just use DEX order > in the combat round. When I started playing RQ, strike rank was the hardest > thing for me to get straight Yup, SR are not what I like about RQ. A very simple system, ala Stormbringer is what is need for RQ Lite. > > >>SORCERY > >>None > >>Eventually publish a D&D style sorcery system, with zillions of > >>spells of different levels. > Why exclude sorcery? With this new version that's being bruited-about > on the net, we should be able to find a Lite version to include. I like the > 2nd part (regarding lotsa flashy-cool spells) though. Again I agree with Anthony here. I see no reason it should be any harder to produce a Sorcery Lite than a Spirit magic or Divine magic Lite section. > > In general, I really like the idea of having an RQLite. I think it'll > help give the game broader appeal. > --Anthony > ecz5rar@mvs.oac.ucla.edu > IrishSpy@aol.com > Rune Chia Pet of Ernalda > -- Curtis Shenton curtiss@netcom.com internet & 4@3091 WWIVnet "At the GM's option, strategic nuclear weapons may be considered 'magical'"-From the CyberCthulhu rules in Interface  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA02906; Thu, 17 Jun 93 01:16:05 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01614; Thu, 17 Jun 93 02:16:00 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Thu, 17 Jun 93 2:16:02 EDT From: Tom Zunder To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Inner/Ki Skills Date: Thu, 17 Jun 93 06:52 GMT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <1D129B31205@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> I feel that Inner/Ki skills should be in RQ, whether as the rules or as an add on. I shall write up my system and propose it. Watch this space, -------------------------------------------------------------------- Orlanth Rex! tzunder@cix.compulink.co.uk --------------------------------------------------------------------  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA04024; Thu, 17 Jun 93 02:48:30 -0500 Return-Path: <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA02407; Thu, 17 Jun 93 03:48:16 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Thu, 17 Jun 93 3:48:22 EDT From: Nick Brooke <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Brief feedback Date: 17 Jun 93 03:43:30 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <1D2B37E0D46@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Anthony: CHARISMA: > since he couldn't speak elegantly, he fails at convincing > the merchant to give him a discount. Wot, no Bargain skill? (Communication skill, base chance 5%, NOT a cult secret so available to anybody). He didn't deserve a discount, then. Still don't see the need for a separate characteristic: after all (to develop an earlier argument), did Hitler get his kippers at a discount? I agree that "player can't do it so character can't do it" is a terrible problem to run into in any RPG. But I don't think it's really relevant here. You're right about no SR's in RQLite. (Or anywhere else, if I had my way). Oliver: I like the look of the new training and time out rules, especially with the suggested tweak to (skill - mod)/10 days per roll. I'll try to poke holes in them later, but they look like a wonderful improvement on the existing system. I'm particularly keen on the alternatives to "training" / "research" etc. More later. Yours, Nick  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA08288; Thu, 17 Jun 93 08:00:39 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA06778; Thu, 17 Jun 93 09:00:19 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Thu, 17 Jun 93 9:00:37 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: COMMENTS, TRAINING, MODIFIERS, DAMAGE BONUS Date: Thu, 17 Jun 93 09:00:26 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <1D7E7447FD9@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Paul here, replying to Oliver's message: Training system: Looks good at first glance. Using bigger blocks (days instead of hours) is a good idea. Will analyze later. Note it does include skill modifier in training; as I've argued in the past, the bright guy is going to be better at the end of the calculus course as well as at the beginning. >I kind of like Paul's idea of using Original POW to determine skill >bonuses - the original POW roll determines whether you are fairly >inobtrusive or have great presence, and would make a thief that ^^^^^ This was one of the things I had in mind. Thieves stay obscure, the kid with magical talent who becomes a priest or shaman doesn't lose his talent after getting Rune Spells or a fetch. > I disagree >with the idea of letting Original POW affect the likelihood of >POW gain I also think its unbalancing, however it does match a lot of genre fiction. In some games we don't care about balance - look at Ars Magica. I think that the suggested approach models what we read about Glorantha in the stories better, e.g. Sheng Seleris was born with POW 21, species max, and kept gaining power rapidly. He was very unbalanced (ask any Irrippi Ontori, they'll give you a long lecture as to how unbalanced he was.) Note also that faster POW gain for high POW characters is sort of built into the current system - they become the priests, shamans, and sorcerors with far more opportunity for gains. But if we want to keep the idea of balance I don't mind. I was sort of harking back to RQ 2 and the increased POW gain roll for priests, and said "What if priests are _selected_ from those with high POW gain rolls rather than getting a bonus?" Anyway, I think that using original POW for modifiers (and not changing the gain rolls) may be the best of both worlds: 1. Not unbalancing, but captures the genre idea of magically talented people. 2. Thieves will now stay stealthy. (In our campaign we used the rule that Initiates of Thief and Hunter Gods used POW as a POSITIVE modifier for Stealth, another solution to this one.) 3. NO MORE YOYO. Skill mods stay constant. Category modifiers: Agility: I still think something mental goes into Agility, and from the people I know who are good at these things, I think it's POW. My Aikido instructor and my dressage (riding) instructor both had a tremendous personal force which I have to describe as POW rather than charisma. Friends who climb tell me that you are in a battle of wills with the mountain, this sounds like POW. On the other hand, we are defining what stats mean here - you can DEFINE DEX to mean 'the thing that determines physical skills'. Then Oliver's proposed mod is OK. Communication: I agree with Oliver, provided APP is the 'social stat' rather than just looks. Walter Cronkite, Phyllis Diller, etc. have low looks but a lot of charisma or presence. Magic skills: I see an attempt at balancing mods here - if we are limited to two net primary modifiers I might drop the DEX and just have INT + Original POW - 20. On the other hand, see Agility note above, perhaps DEX includes a mental component. Do high DEX people think faster? Does DEX include spatial intelligence? If so then Oliver's mod is OK. SKILLS NOTE: Most Craft Skills should go under Manipulation. Have you seen an armorer at work? If so you'll agree that Dexterity should go in the Armoring mod. Similarly with sewing, tailoring, etc. The idea of a person with 18 INT but Str 4, Dex 3 being able to become a master blacksmith is a bit absurd, isn't it? Move it over to manipulation - I want my smiths burly. >With respect to highly skilled fighters doing additional damage - to a >certain extent specials and criticals handle that already - however, one >of the best ideas I've seen suggested for this was by Brandon Bryslawski, >who suggested that characters be allowed to subtract from their >chance to hit in exchange for doing extra damage - something like >+1 damage for every 20% subtracted from your skill - this would We use something like this - you can swing for Truesword-type damage if you drop your parry completely (winding up for a full swing). His system may be better, haven't tried it. Another rule would be to let fighters exchange skill for strike ranks, this is similar to the one-shot rule I mentioned the other day. ___________ - Paul responds to Graeme on OJ's training system: > One suggestion: rather than Time in Days = (skill/10) - (mod/10), >why not Time in Days = (skill - mod)/10 to avoid problems caused A good suggestion. >If you say that original pow is something like >"soul size" and later pow is "soul strength" it sounds a bit less >grating. I tend to think of Original POW as you magical potential, it stays with you and you tend to wind up back at it. POW loss is sort of like "long term soul fatigue" in this model, a debilitation you can recover from. POW gain is a more-or-less temporary add on. [Odd ideas: Maybe a slight amount of training could be allowed to Original POW, through meditation, retreat to the wilderness, etc. Or instead, retreats, etc. could give POW gains. (Perhaps only to recover up to Original POW?) Valindi would retreat to the Glacier, Inorans to snow capped mountains, etc. Communion with Nature or other culturally appropriate stuff should be worth a gain roll per season or some such, this is the classic way to regain lost verve.]  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA13188; Thu, 17 Jun 93 10:19:54 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA12413; Thu, 17 Jun 93 11:19:47 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Thu, 17 Jun 93 11:19:51 EDT From: Anthony Ragan To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: (COPY) Brief feedback Date: Thu, 17 Jun 93 08:17 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <1DA39791B10@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> {Nick writes} Anthony: CHARISMA: > since he couldn't speak elegantly, he fails at convincing > the merchant to give him a discount. Wot, no Bargain skill? (Communication skill, base chance 5%, NOT a cult secret so available to anybody). He didn't deserve a discount, then. Still don't see the need for a separate characteristic: after all (to develop an earlier argument), did Hitler get his kippers at a discount? {I reply} I misspoke a bit. What I meant was Charisma as a factor in communication skills, in which I include bargain. I can' remember who initially proposed it, but I like the idea of moving many of the communication skills to CHA (or whatever we call it) and away from INT. --Anthony ecz5rar@mvs.oac.ucla.edu IrishSpy@aol.com Rune Chia Pet of Ernalda  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA14875; Thu, 17 Jun 93 11:00:17 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA14203; Thu, 17 Jun 93 12:00:10 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Thu, 17 Jun 93 12:00:15 EDT From: Malcolm Cohen To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: RQ4: TRAINING, NATURAL ARMOUR Date: Thu, 17 Jun 93 17:00:04 MET Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <1DAE5C96AFC@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> > One suggestion: rather than Time in Days = (skill/10) - (mod/10), > why not Time in Days = (skill - mod)/10 to avoid problems caused > by rounding off twice. In this formula, even a small skill mod > will have some effect. One quibble I have with this suggestion (overall, not the rounding fixup!) is that the skill modifier seems to have too large an effect on skill chances at high levels and learning time at lower levels. It all depends on what one thinks is happening during training; is the training time long because it takes longer to improve oneself above base or is it also because more advanced techniques are more complicated and take longer to explain and learn. I have always assumed that at least part of training time is simply due to the larger amount of learning involved at higher skill levels. (*) A revised formula would be (skill-mod/2)/10 instead of (skill-mod)/10. This does not seem too mathematical to me but what do I know? (*) Arguably false for non-Lore skills. > As for natural armour, half integer strength bonus as full natural > armour seems to work better than my system of "only applies against > natural weapons or if wearing armour on top". Note that this will > change the monster write ups: a horse has average siz 32, str 32, > so damage bonus will be 64/5 - 5 = +8 (rounded up), natural armour > +4 (as opposed to 2 points currently). How does this sound to everyone > else? Not bad, I always thought that "natural armour" was underrated (a friend doing anthropology research investigated the resistance of horses to sharp objects; and came to the conclusion that primitive hunters *needed* to have very sharp flints on their spears...). -- ...........................Malcolm Cohen, NAG Ltd., Oxford, U.K. (malcolm@nag.co.uk)  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA22121; Thu, 17 Jun 93 13:37:11 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA21401; Thu, 17 Jun 93 14:37:05 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Thu, 17 Jun 93 14:37:07 EDT From: mc@cp.dias.ie To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Comments+Impressions Date: Thu, 17 Jun 93 17:02:14 BST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <1DD83E944E4@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Just reading through my copy of the playtest rules and typing in any notes in the margin that I've pencilled in so far Page 13: DETERMINING CHARACTERISTICS How about including the characteristic rolls for commonly played non-humans here too? Brown and Green Elves, Trolls etc. Also under the Deliberate Method include the totals used for non-humans so that the reader doesn't have to go off and add up the averages of a troll's characteristics himself. Page 19: FIGURING SKILLS CATEGORY MODIFIERS Here I'm in agreement with the idea of making all modifiers around the same in magnitude, especially the Attack and Parry mods. STRIKE RANKS: Try this: DEX+SIZ-N*WEAPON SR = MELEE STRIKE RANK For normal combat make N=4 (say) and Highest MSR strikes first. Change N to suit: If you think weapon length is important, make N bigger, not so important, make it smaller. For N=4 a 2 point difference in Weapon SR makes for an 8 point difference in SIZ and DEX. If the weight of SIZ (pardon the pun) is too great in this formula for you, make it SIZ/2 instead. For missiles just use DEX*N for a readied weapon or DEX+10 for an unreadied one. This insures that a readied missile weapon goes first in almost all situations, and an unreadied one not so reliably. For close combat change to DEX+(N*SR) so that unwieldy weapons slow you up in close combat. PROFESSIONS AND PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE These all look alright to me, with reservations. The prevalence of weapon skills for everyone and his uncle has already been mentioned by several people. I'm also not sure about the additional levies placed on professions like the sorceror and noble and so on. While a nobleman's son may well not have the same level of training as a mercenary soldier's son would, why should the daughter of a shaman (say) have to spend BP's just to get the profession resulting in lower skills (overall) than an equivalent tribesman from the same tribe. I know that the two would have different skills but why should one have a lower total? Also a possible error in the sorceror's profession table. Does any one else's draft copy have a different schedule of costs/skill levels for the sorceror and the general table presented at the beginning of the tables? I have Sorceror 45% 1 60% 2 75% 4 90% 8 General 45% 1/2 60% 1 75% 2 90% 4 Which of these is correct? ACTIVE VS PASSIVE SKILLS Is it really too difficult to use the greatest margin of success as measured by the rolls to determine the upper hand in such a situation? Whoever rolls the greatest amount lower than their skill, succeeds. Specials beat normal rolls, Critical beat Specials and that's it. SKILL EXPERIENCE ROLLS Lots of good ideas going around about this. Personally I have never had the skill check frenzy that seems to have prompted the change in the frequency of increase rolls. In fact I would suggest an example for this section showing the benefit of giving out increase rolls in little used or neglected skills. e.g. After one week's travel in unfamiliar country give all the players a check (or an increase roll) in Ride, Scout (Terrain), Survival (perhaps) and Craft (Cooking). A simple problem I forsee with the easy/medium/hard/veryhard progression is that, unless forced to by cult requirements, most characters will put their increase rolls into skill where they can see a concrete improvement. The skills that should advance slowly due to difficulty, will advance doubly so because the players prefer to get +5 or +7 for an increase roll than a +1 or +2. Why roll different amounts for training and experience? It seems to me that three weeks in the bush, hunting with a Foundchild master hunter is three weeks of training (most training, as pointed out by Nick Brooke and others, is in fact not desk study but field observation and imitation). Give the character a few skill checks in appropriate skills and let him/her roll for experience normally. To my mind only Lores and Languages can be trained up in the "spend x hours down the temple" method. How about the following for training times if you need them Average of Instruct% and Skill in Question% Current 01-25 25-50 51-75 76-89 90+ Skill 01-25 3wks 2wks 1wk 1/2wk 1day 26-50 n/a 3wks 2wks 1wk 1/2wk 51-75 n/a n/a 3wks 2wks 1wk 76-89 na/ n/a n/a 3wks 2wk 90+ n/a n/a n/a n/a 3wks The table lists the time required in tutelage under the Teacher to get one experince check in the skill in question. Perhaps 1 day is too short a minimum period, in which case restrict it to no less than 1/2 week periods. This table also insures that Masters of their Skills are appropriately better at the teaching of that skill. If the weight of the instruct skill is too great or too little change the relative weights for the calculation of the top row. CHARACTERISTIC INCREASES Why not something simple like weeks of training equal to half the value of the characteristic in question. Succeed in instruction roll or (Max-Current)x5% roll and go up as D6 1-3 +1 point 4-5 +2 points 6 +3 points. I use this for my power gain rolls too. BLEEDING I don't like the current bleeding rules as they mean a wounded adventurer (or whatever) doesn't bleed until incapacitated in some hit location. I do not think this is realistic. Why not something like once wounded in any location for more 2 points, record one bleeding wound. Each bleeding wound reduces your fatigue roll at the 5 round mark, or perhaps preferably shortens up the interval between fatigue rolls. This is a bit clumsy still. Has anyone got bleeding rules that work? Another point, No first aid to stop internal bleeding, as inflicted by "Heavy crushing weapons". FATIGUE Like most people I dislike the "add to roll" concept introduced here. I say 5 fatigue classes as suggested in the draft, with skill losses as Skill Reduction 0 -10 -30 -60 incapacitated Move n/a n/a 2/3 1/2 none AutoFailure 96-00 91-00 86-00 81-00 n/a and the autofailure chance modified as suggested on the list already. Does any body know if Carl Lewis and friends recover as quickly as implied by the draft rules? 5 rounds now equals 30 seconds and duriing that time a warrior can "run at top speed" losing (on a failed roll) 1 fatigue level which is recovered in 12 seconds taking it easy or 6 seconds completely resting. This doesn't sound right. Sprint 30 seconds and you cover about 270m by the rules, I don't think Lewis and similar sprinters can sprint repeatedly with 6 to 20 second breaks inbetween 100m dashes. Nor should Gloranthan foot men and the like. Long term fatigue loss is very messy, and need a good pruning to make it simpler and easier to apply. People will start ignoring rules from the moment they open the book, but you shouldn't incourage them too much CRITICAL HITS "I roll 02, ooops I've slain the Crimson Bat." Can we change this bit, please? The Spear has already got too many advantages in the rules as it is, with impales and now 2d6 experience increase against 1d6 increase for swords (Real Men use swords). Ignore Armour (or Shatter parrying weapon perhaps) or Double damage roll. (not both) However I did like to see the return of the Slash and Crush. SKILLS Like many I find too many skills offputting, especially when my character sheet is covered in 00 and 05% skills. Leave plenty of space on the character sheet for new skills and cut back on the redundancy in the lists. A profession skill, like PS:profession in the Hero System might be a good idea. This could cover those awkward and annoying skills like torture, administrate, accounting etc. Also with the 30-60-90 division of calibre you could determine professional standing as apprentice,journeyman or master. Refine Medicine What is the POT of found herbs/animal parts/whatever? I can't afford to always buy my healing herbs from the town and I'm sure many travelling healers pick their own using Plant Lore to find them. Give us a good flora section in the creatures or world chapter, and perhaps a table here of common gloranthan plants and their properties. Memorize Why the low base chance? Before the least it could have been was INTx1% and that was only if you had a very tough GM. I know that this works by rote and is not strictly comparable but even so I think th chance is too low. DISEASE I always preferred and used the RINGWORLD suggestions on disease for RQ. A box or table of common/uncommon diseases in Glorantha, with information on the symptoms, incubation time, exposure risks and possible cures. The smallpox write-up in RINGWORLD is really what I'm thinking of. Also mention here the role Malia plays in the spread of disease, if you want a Gloranthan base to the rule-set. SPIRIT COMBAT Ouch! I never found I stood much of a chance against the disimbodied world before, but now: No Way. Considering how fond Chaosium are of dropping in the odd spirit and ghost here and there in their published scenarios I don't think that these rules are going to help such spirit combats go smoothly. Too many tables and the advantage of high Power watered down for us poor embodied folk by the introduction of a Spirit Combat skill. I think, in Glorantha (and probably elsewhere too) that the force of will (POW) is the overiding factor in spirit conflict. As it's now written most characters will have Spirit Combat of 25-30% and it being hard (+d3 a pop) there it is like to stay. See above in the discussion of skills for the gist. That's probably enough to be going on with. I have yet to see the draft Sorcery rules but the P+M presence sorcery gets my thumbs up. Can anyone send me a copy of the draft sorcery to the email address below? I'd be very grateful. Cheers, Myles (mc@cp.dias.ie)  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA15578; Thu, 17 Jun 93 11:15:06 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA14830; Thu, 17 Jun 93 12:14:59 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Thu, 17 Jun 93 12:15:02 EDT From: Malcolm Cohen To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: COMMENTS, TRAINING, MODIFIERS, DAMAGE BONUS Date: Thu, 17 Jun 93 17:14:57 MET Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <1DB25DE08ED@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> > A typical week for a would be adventurer holding down a full time job > in Pavis might be: > > 4 days of duties (job) I hope this is an example, otherwise it is hopelessly oversimplified. Pre industrial revolution many "jobs" required much less time per week than this; OTOH there are other jobs which require more. I would leave this up to GM decision. > Socializing yields friends and contacts. A character that > does not spend one day a week socializing will have few > or no friends or contacts. Most characters will typically After a while they will likely also be going nuts. People are (speaking generally) social animals; working during all the non-waking non-sleeping hours will have more effects than just getting no friends. Having done a "work most of all available hours" for several months a couple of years ago I can state, with feeling, that it is not pleasant either to one's state of mind or those one comes into contact with. My feeling is that no bribery of the players is needed here; just demand it of non-hermits (or indeed, of all -- as RQ3 does when it limits the hours per week available). Any exceptions can be winged by the GM. > Optional rule: Subtract 1 day of training time required for every 10% of skill > bonus (to avoid penalizing characters with high skill bonuses). Due to rounding errors this turns a difference of 1% in skill mod bonus (for some values) into learning things MUCH more quickly. Personally, I do not have that much trouble with the hourly regime. > (Basically, this means that a competent teacher (with high Instruct skill) > will be able to teach twice as effectively as an incompetent one, but > eliminates the need to make Instruct rolls, which seems a significant > simplification). Sounds good. -- ...........................Malcolm Cohen, NAG Ltd., Oxford, U.K. (malcolm@nag.co.uk)  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA15203; Thu, 17 Jun 93 11:07:04 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA14553; Thu, 17 Jun 93 12:06:57 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Thu, 17 Jun 93 12:07:01 EDT From: "Roderick Robertson, SC1-5, x52936" To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: (COPY) Brief feedback Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1993 08:53 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <1DB035E5C7B@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> >Wot, no Bargain skill? (Communication skill, base chance 5%, NOT a cult >secret so available to anybody). He didn't deserve a discount, then. >Still don't see the need for a separate characteristic: after all (to >develop an earlier argument), did Hitler get his kippers at a discount? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Probably did. Are *YOU* going to charge him full price? Me, I'd probably *give* them to him (along with the business, then pack up and head out-country as fast as I could) "Big Smiles, BIG Smiles" - Genie, Aladdin Roderick  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA29663; Wed, 16 Jun 93 22:34:23 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA29527; Wed, 16 Jun 93 23:34:04 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 16 Jun 93 23:34:11 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: COMMENTS, TRAINING, MODIFIERS, DAMAGE BONUS Date: Thu, 17 Jun 93 13:33:24 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <1CE7710604D@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Reply to Oliver's new training system: This looks like a great improvement. The inclusion of the skill modifier in training is a very good move: I've always been puzzled as to why modifiers affect experience but not training or research. The simplified maths is a blessing as well: I've had to put together training tables to use in our epic "3 seasons off" training extravaganzas. Assuming 10 hour days, the training times are the same. One suggestion: rather than Time in Days = (skill/10) - (mod/10), why not Time in Days = (skill - mod)/10 to avoid problems caused by rounding off twice. In this formula, even a small skill mod will have some effect. Are their any plans to simplify characteristic training? The RQIV draft system is superior as it doesn't penalize people who start at a high stat but bases it on how far one has progressed, but the maths are a bit complex. As for natural armour, half integer strength bonus as full natural armour seems to work better than my system of "only applies against natural weapons or if wearing armour on top". Note that this will change the monster write ups: a horse has average siz 32, str 32, so damage bonus will be 64/5 - 5 = +8 (rounded up), natural armour +4 (as opposed to 2 points currently). How does this sound to everyone else? I was opposed to the Original Pow mod at first (why is it the only stat which doesn't affect mods during play), but it is a useful simplification. If you say that original pow is something like "soul size" and later pow is "soul strength" it sounds a bit less grating. Graeme Lindsell a.k.a gal502@huxley.anu.edu.au  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA20454; Thu, 17 Jun 93 13:08:38 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA19817; Thu, 17 Jun 93 14:08:17 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Thu, 17 Jun 93 14:08:31 EDT From: "Roderick Robertson, SC1-5, x52936" To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: CULTURE TABLES, STRIKE RANK Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1993 11:02 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <1DD090063F2@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Gang, CULTURAL TABLES Looking over the character creation rules, they seemed backwards to me. The GM chooses skill level, then roll for culture, then for profession, etc. My feelings are that the GM should have an idea of where the campaign will take place before starting the character generation procedure. The Cultural Background Table should be eliminated in favor of an included booklet of a few likely campaign areas (Sartar/Prax, Somewhere in the West, Lunar Empire ?). These areas would then be presented like the Players book of Genertala pp 21-34. Reduce the number of entries, but increase the cultural information of each entry. Thus a Player choosing a Sartar Orlanthi and see something like: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- SARTAR CULTURAL LEVEL: Barbarian, Orlanthi RACIAL TYPE: Wareran Occupations: (D100) Occupation Social Cults ... 90-91 Noble Noble 30%, Thane 70% (Orlanth 95%, Other 5%) 92-93 Priest Thane 100% (Orlanth Pantheon 100%) 94-00 Warrior Carl 60%, Thane 40% (Orlanth 75%, Humakt 15%, Storm Bull 5%, Other 5%) Equipment ========= Carl: Chain (10%), Scale (20%), Hardened Leather (50%) or Leather (20%) Hauberk, Open Helm. Broadsword or Battle Axe, Wood Round Shield, Knife. 50L in goods, good clothes. 50% chance of Horse if Rider, 1 servent/slave (Warrior +20 to Armor and Horse rolls). Thane: Chain (40%) or Scale (60%) Hauberk, Open helm, Leather Trews. Broadsword or Battle Axe, 1D2+2 spears, Reinforced Wood Round Shield, Knife. 100L in goods/plunder, Fine clothes, Horse if Rider. 1D6 servants/slaves Noble: Chain (60%) or Scale (50%) Hauberk, Open helm, Leather Trews. 2 Broadswords or Battle Axes, 6 Spears, 1D4+2 Reinforced Wood Round Shields, Knives. 500L in goods/plunder, Fine clothes, 1D3 Horses, 2D6 servants/slaves CULTURAL WEAPONS: Attack and Parry: Broadsword or Battle Axe 30, Spear, Hand Axe, Knife Attack Only: Self Bow or Composite Bow 25, Javelin, Thrown Axe, Sling Parry Only: Target Shield 30 (Wood or Wood reinforced) MAGIC all except priests recieve the benefits of an Initiate. Priests recieve the magic benefits of a Priest CULTS: Orlanth Pantheon (must have the pantheon here or somewhere in the rules...) Note: Tribes include... (note, fake numbers used here...) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Note that the Cultural weapons section should include *All* weapons used by the culture in question, not just those with increased chances. Thus an Orlanthi player will tend to chose Broadsword or Battle Axe, but knows that spears are used by Sartarites (Jalk's Book, description of a chieftain: "He must have two good horses, a metal helmet and byrnie, two good swords and six spears" KoS, p.252) The Campaign areas chosen should have exactly the professions you want to include in the game, no more, no less. So for instance, if you want to use The Kingdom of Ignorance as part of the base rules, make sure that Overseer and Mandarin are included in the profession section. (Taken from Players Book, Genertala p.26). Every campaign area should have at least one way to get each profession (except Priest/Shaman/Sorceror, which are dependant on Culture). Some of the specialized professions (Thunder Delta Slingers, Squires) may be included as part of a specific profession, and be noted in the write-up. Mention must be taken of all the special cases (do townspeople of Sartar have a different culture than the rest of the Kingdom?). With the main campaign areas set out in the Rules, supplements can have similar tables to generate characters from the area in question. So Sun County would have the tables for generating Praxian Sundomers (Probably different from Dragon Pass Sundomers), Prax Pack would have them for Praxian nomads, Sorcerors of the West for the Feudal system, etc. ==================================================================== Thinking about Strike Ranks and what can be done in one 'round': The Strike rank idea can be expanded for things other than speed of attack in combat. All actions, from solving a math problem to moving lots of sacks of concrete take time, and can be performed faster or slower depending on the skills or abilities of the performer. What I have done in my games is use one 'SR Table' based on the DEX table for all non-combat actions. After all, how long does it take to pick a lock? It could be a critical question in combat ("Quick, the guards are coming. We'll try to hold them off, but GET THAT DOOR OPEN"). All actions are measured against the SR table to determine how long it takes (only when it matters of course. If you have a week, detailing how long to pick one lock is a bit overboard). There are a number of numbers which can be checked against the table: Stats (STR to lift a heavy rock), Skill/10 (expert lockpickers are said to be as fast or faster than using a key), Skill Bonus (Perception bonus for combat scan). I have always run it by the seat of my pants as to which number gets used. The SR table is on everyone's character sheet, so it's a case of "Check your on the SR table". The SR table is used to determine time spent on a project, using units other than a Melee Round. How long does it take to de-code that message? Read (or Script or whatever)/10 in minutes. How long to make the trap? Devise/10 in 5 minute units. How long to move all those boulders? STR in 15 minute units, how long to cast that ritual spell? (MP in spell) in hours. In Combat, what I think needs to be stressed in the rules is that the SR are not discrete units of time (1/12 or 1/10 of a round), but a indication of relative speed. In 10 seconds (real life), you can make 10 or more distinct attacks (depending on skill and weapon of course). So the SR is a number which tells who managed to strike a telling blow *First*. If you need a little more randomness, roll a D6 or D4 for each character and add it to the SR for the round. This is more die-rolling than I like, but then, I usually run games without magic, so the "I'll cast 2 pts of Bladesharp and still hit before he does" situation does not come up. ======================================================================= Ideas? Questions? Quibbles? Roderick Robertson Robertson@delphi.intel.com  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA23472; Thu, 17 Jun 93 14:11:22 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA22709; Thu, 17 Jun 93 15:11:16 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Thu, 17 Jun 93 15:11:20 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Comments+Impressions Date: Thu, 17 Jun 93 15:11:19 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <1DE15864157@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Paul here, replying to Myles: >Is it really too difficult to use the greatest margin of success as measured >by the rolls to determine the upper hand in such a situation? Whoever rolls >the greatest amount lower than their skill, succeeds. Specials beat normal >rolls, Critical beat Specials and that's it. Highest number within a category gives the same probability distribution and involves one less computation. It's simpler, therefore in my opinion better. It's also easier to say, "Can anyone beat a Special 10"? than "I've rolled a 6, my special chance is 19. Margin of success = 13, can anyone beat this?" With the PENDRAGON type system I advocate it's much more transparent who wins, you just compare the dice roll within catgories. Probably a billion people have seen "The Price is Right" and can understand the concept of highest number without going over wins. Also, I've often seen people making mistakes doing two digit subtractions like (Skill 73 - Rolled 26) = (Margin of Victory 57). They can make a carry error, for example. I've never seen someone make a comparison mistake like (Rolled 14 is bigger than Rolled 16) and don't expect to. The comparison system has a lower probability of error. In any case the comparison is slightly faster and will speed up the flow of the game by a second or two. A second here, a second there, it adds up. Every second I'm subtracting I'm not roleplaying, unless I'm playing an Etyries accountant. >FATIGUE I used to belong to the Autofailure school but now belong to the Straight Skill Modifier school. Luckily I'm an Illuminate so the Autofailure Spirit of Reprisal can't get me. On a serious note, people with 200% skills should be able to win against ordinary mortals in their sleep. Their spinal reflexes should be programmed for their skills, practically. Also, higher skill people learn to be more efficient in their tasks and take longer to reach the point of being too tired to do anything, the straight skill modifier reflects this. I really think that Harrek and Jar-Eel should not get taken down by autofailed parries until they are tired beyond mortal ken. How many characters have 150% skill? They've worked hard for decades, should have learned to cope with fatigue. - Paul PS> Thanks Myles for the thumbs up on sorcery. Will have another draft out around the end of the month.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA01186; Thu, 17 Jun 93 16:51:26 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA29050; Thu, 17 Jun 93 17:51:16 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Thu, 17 Jun 93 17:51:24 EDT From: mabeyke@batman.b11.ingr.com (boris) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: COMMENTS, TRAINING, MODIFIERS, DAMAGE BONUS Date: Thu, 17 Jun 93 16:53:27 CDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <1E0C10E31C7@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> TO: the Gang of (RQ)4. All six of them. Notes on Oliver's (that's MR. JOVANOVIC to you boy ;-) suggested changes. Diving right in.... > >Socializing yields friends and contacts. A character that >does not spend one day a week socializing will have few >or no friends or contacts. Most characters will typically >have two or three friends or contacts (an exact number can be >calculated by dividing Custom skill by 20 and multiplying >this number by the number of days a week spent socializing - >a character with 71% Custom skill that spends 2 days a week >socializing would have 7 good friends or contacts). >Generally the more powerful or useful the friend or contact, >the less influence over them the character would have. Instead of saying an exact number, say an approximate number. Experienced GMs won't let themselves be bound by this, and there's no reason to confuse beginners with what is, essentially, a rule of thumb. State that it is just a rule of thumb explicitly, for the beginners. We do want to get as many (good) new players in the RQ fold as we can, after all. > >TRAINING > >Days of training to increase a skill by = skill/10 > > = 1d6 for a Medium skill, 1d3 for a Hard skill and 2d6 for > an Easy skill. > >Optional rule: Subtract skill bonus/10 from the days of training time required > (this avoids penalizing characters with high bonuses). > >Training can be expensive, and may be difficult to obtain, particularly at >higher skill levels. Are we working with just intergers here? If so, then state explicitly (there's that word again) how to round. Yeah, I know, it's implicit in the table. Humor me, it'll help the tyro. Also, if it is just interger math, then the add from skill boni are going to be just zero or one (if rounding down) or just one or two (if rounding up), unless truely exceptional people are involved. If the subtraction is done before dividing, as some have suggested, then this is not as granular, and works better. > >A simplified chart: > > Days of Days of Days of > training to practice to research to > increase by increase by increase by >Skill % > >1 to 10 1 2 4 >11 to 20 2 4 8 >21 to 30 3 6 12 >31 to 40 4 8 16 >41 to 50 5 10 20 >51 to 60 6 12 24 >61 to 70 7 14 28 >71 to 80 8 16 32 >81 to 90 9 18 36 >91 to 100 10 20 40 >101 to 110 11 22 44 >etc. > >Optional rule: Subtract 1 day of training time required for every 10% of skill > bonus (to avoid penalizing characters with high skill bonuses). List costs in the chart also: if this is the same as 3rd ed. then it would be based on number of students, which is based on level of skill. So add two more columns showing these, and the GM can quickly look it up and tweak for current conditions as he wishes, all very quickly. Currently training in RQ is a pain in the butt; this looks to be a massive improvement. Add the extra info to make it a complete snap. Of course state that the costs apply only to commonly available skills, and suggest modifiers for rarity. > >TEACHERS > >A teacher can normally train someone effectively that has a skill level equal >to or lower than half theirs. If the students skill level is above half the >teacher's but equal to or below the teachers skill, it counts as practice for >the student. If the students skill level is greater than that of the teachers, >it counts as research for the student. This would be a good place to mention how much teachers can charge, based on skill level and rarity of skill. > >INSTRUCT SKILL > >Instruct skill enhances the effectiveness of a teacher. Add the teacher's >Instruct skill to the skill they are teaching (not to exceed twice the level >of the skill being taught) for the purposes of determining their ability to >teach). > >Example: Arlia has a Scimitar attack skill of 68%, but no Instruct skill. >She could effectively train someone with a Scimitar skill of 34% or below. > >Drill Sargent Carnifex, with a Scimitar attack skill of 71% and a Instruct >skill of 85% could effectively train someone with a Scimitar skill of 71% >or lower (half of 71+71 (not 71+85, as 71x2 is lower)). > >(Basically, this means that a competent teacher (with high Instruct skill) >will be able to teach twice as effectively as an incompetent one, but >eliminates the need to make Instruct rolls, which seems a significant >simplification). Much better than requiring a success roll for each training session. Now players can process downdown without a handful of dice. As an aid to this, might allow a fixed add of, say, 1, 3, or 6 for hard, medium and easy skills. I never minded a fixed add, I just didn't like it being equal to the average roll. This way, someone who wants to take the time to roll gains the advantage of faster increase, on average, but if someone needs to go up at least 3 points, they can take the add. >Characteristic modifiers - > >I kind of like Paul's idea of using Original POW to determine skill >bonuses - the original POW roll determines whether you are fairly >inobtrusive or have great presence, and would make a thief that >later increased his POW a reasonable character to play. I disagree >with the idea of letting Original POW affect the likelihood of >POW gain, however - that would be far too unbalancing - in the >long run, characters with low starting roll for POW would be dwarfed >by those with a medium or high roll. POW just plays too vital a role >in spell casting, magical attack, magical defense, spirit combat >and cult progression. Even without this, the Original POW idea gives >characters that start with a high original rolled POW some incentive >to become magicians, since their magic bonus will be higher than >that of other characters. I can see keeping this for balance. It *is* very much in genre, however, to have some who are born "powerful"; Merlin (as well as Arkat) started with a high POW and just got higher. But it's not a major point. >Given the idea of changes from Original POW not affecting modifiers, >what about the following set of modifiers: > >Communication Skills Category Modifier >INT/2 + Original POW/2 + APP - 20 APP as APP makes little sense here. If it's CHA or PRE, then I agree completely. > >Magic Skills Category Modifier >Original POW + INT/2 + DEX/2 - 20 INT as a secondary char. for Magic? I'd say make it primary, and drop DEX, if you want to balance things. > >I would still retain a seperate category of Knowledge skills (skills >that can't be increased by experience, but if these represent skills >that are strictly learned, they really don't need a bonus in any case). I disagree. Something that is strictly learned is still learned more quickly by more intelligent people. Give them a bonus on INT - 10 (or 2xINT - 20 if you want balance with the others). Making the base of these skills zero more reflects that they are learned only. IMO, of course. >Damage Bonus - > >It would be an added complication, but if we go with the point by point >damage bonus system, something like half the damage bonus is your >natural armor might work fairly well - humans would have one or two >points at most, which sounds about right. This makes some sense, especially in heroic games. Perhaps rule that any wound taken has to have these APs healed as well. Though that would be an added complication that's not really needed, so it would be best as an optional rule, I guess. > >With respect to highly skilled fighters doing additional damage - to a >certain extent specials and criticals handle that already - however, one >of the best ideas I've seen suggested for this was by Brandon Bryslawski, >who suggested that characters be allowed to subtract from their >chance to hit in exchange for doing extra damage - something like >+1 damage for every 20% subtracted from your skill - this would >let highly skilled fighters (such as a Rune Lord with 140% attack) >do 2 or 3 extra points of damage per blow. Might make for a good optional >rule. I like this. Say even if a Storm Khan had cast Bladesharp 6 and Berserk, raising his normal skill of 110% to 250%, then he would either special 50% of the time, or drop his skill to 90% and his special chance to 18%, but get +8 to damage. (Hey, I like using gedanken experiments to explore the hairy fringes. So sue me.) Need to (here it comes again) explicitly specify how the added damage if affected by specials and crits. I'd say it looks good. Needs some text fixes is all, but it is a predraft, so that's normal. I like it. ---- (*) ZZ [] (.) @ e K| o8- |> oK <>< )o 3 8 <| Two heads are better than none. Thanatar proverb. Boris |><| +- (| >- .: K * =|= <- (O) ( ) (o) (|) X-  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA04228; Thu, 17 Jun 93 18:03:29 -0500 Return-Path: <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01338; Thu, 17 Jun 93 19:03:20 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Thu, 17 Jun 93 19:03:27 EDT From: Nick Brooke <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: COMMENTS (2) from David Hall Date: 17 Jun 93 18:59:14 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <1E1F3BB10F6@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> SKILL SUCCESS Missing or making by 10%. Is this a flat rate 10%, or 10% of the skill you're rolling? This is the major problem with RQ. Ideally there should be more levels of success and less of this complete success/total failure knife-edge. SPEAK OWN LANGUAGE I feel that speaking a language is partially a function of intelligence, but mostly of experience - learning new words and how to say them. I believe that instead it should be 30% plus Communication bonus, perhaps 40%, but no more. Certain professions would have Speak Language as one of their skills. For example, Nobles, Storytellers, Priests, Merchants, Heralds, Officials, Scholars. Also, all characters should get +1% per year in whatever language of whatever country they have spent their time in. NEW SKILLS I heartily agree with these sentiments. It's a pity they don't seem to have been followed. AGING AND INACTION So what happens if your STR drops to zero? SKILL Vs SKILL Might it not be better to match skills on the resistance table at the outset? SKILL EXPERIENCE ROLLS Why have you taken out the bit about the GM agreeing that a situation is stressful or not? Presumably the Player now decides for himself without any GM involvement. Option 1. This reads that if you use the skill and don't fumble, i.e. Crit, Special, Success or Fail, then you can check this skill. Yes? I much prefer option two as it is the simpler of the two, and the current norm. INCREASING SKILLS BY EXPERIENCE The 1D2 + 2 (and 2D6 or7, 1D3 or" etc) just doesn't work. All but those with fixed dice would choose the less random amount because the balance of probability leads to the same amount over time for both methods! i.e. Both the D6 and the D2+2 average out to 3.5%! Note that in the rules errata for RQ3 Chaosium said that a character could choose to add 2% (and not the 3% in the rulebook). The idea was to encourage people to risk the randomness of the dice roll (rolling dice is fun y'know). You take that enjoyment away, and as it stands the rules should just plump for one of the two methods - the other is waste of space. These Easy, Medium, and Hard skills are a complicating factor in this case, and something that I for one will ignore. But then I like a simple life. SKILL TRAINING AND RESEARCH Making the training and research skill increase rolls the same as those from experience encourages people to research at low skill levels and not to learn by training or actual experience. If you research you don't have to pay a teacher (and the teacher can't fumble his instruct roll) nor do you have to actually use the skill - and endanger yourself in the case of weapons. Maybe at the 50% level it's best to switch to training or experience. But from the looks of this the canny PC with a bit of money can get all his relevant skills up to 75%, no problem, and train or research a few skills to 100% without ever using them in a stress situation. This is seriously screwed up. There is no longer any opportunity to lose any skill points from bad training or wrong research. The only exception to this is a fumbled Instruct roll by the teacher - hardly very common. Even if he fails his instruct roll it counts as research which has almost the same benefit per hour as training! I think the value of experience should not be devalued. It should continue to be the most efficient way of learning. If only because it controls the completely unrealistic excesses by PC's that the availability of training and research seem to lead to. I think that Research and Training should at the very least be limited to 75% in an experience checkable skill. CHARACTERISTIC INCREASES I'm very uneasy with the SIZ increases - the rules get a bit messy and involved. I think there should be no possible increase in SIZ, or that the increase should be limited to 1.2 or 1.25 times original. Another alternative is two new characteristics, SIZ and BULK. I also liked the old rule that you could only train STR & CON to the highest of the original STR, CON or SIZ. PROCEDURE FOR CHARACTERISTIC INCREASE THROUGH TRAINING Making characteristic increases Easy, Medium and Hard as well seems a calculated attempt to make my life far more complicated for no apparent reason! I preferred the chance to roll for an increase. It's more and more of a book-keeping exercise now. RESULTS OF DAMAGE I wonder if when you do more than double damage to the head location it should be instant death. Or at the very least death when the head is severed from the body. A fair number of people will object to the new rules because they make RQ less deadly (see the letters page in Tales #3). I myself prefer it to tend towards it being more deadly. FATIGUE The new system is an improvement on the old one. But I'm still not sure this system solves the problem. I'd make it even simpler. Fatigue Classes Regaining Fatigue: So by spending 6 - 12 seconds resting I can move from Exhausted to Weary? And 12 - 48 seconds to get from Incapacitated to Normal! Seems mighty easy! Natural Rolls when fatigued: This is at a flat rate and therefore is prejudiced towards the mega-percentile attack hero (+10% for being Weary is far worse for a 45% Average Farmer than it is for a 120% Rune Lord). Is this so designed? I'd suggest: Tired Reduce skill by 10%. E.g. 65% swordsman, now has a skill of 59% Weary Reduce skill by 25%. E.g. 65% swordsman, now has a skill of 49% Exhausted Reduce skill by 50%. E.g. 65% swordsman, now has a skill of 33% It keeps the differentials closer. STATEMENT OF INTENT Alternatively get everyone to write the statement down secretly, and declare them when combat starts. COMBAT MOVEMENT There needs to be two basic systems: i) A freeform system. Such as that used by most RQers at the moment. For this all we need to know is: - Who moves first/who has the initiative. ii) A complete wargames based system with a hex map, etc. At the moment there would seem to be one wargames-based system without hex map and one optional one with hex map. For simplicity I'd go for the one with the map. It should satisfy those gamers with the need for precise movement and engagement. Maneouvre skill is a funny one. It's the old wargaming fix for that situation in a simultaneous movement set of wargame rules where one player says he charged his cavalry into your flank, but you insist that you moved your infantry into a square beforehand. Myself? I'd use a DEX x 5 roll. ATTACK I must say I do like the return of the slash and crush rules. On the crush rule you might want to add that soft armour is fully effective, i.e. it is not halved. A critical hit is really nasty. However, since the chances of death have been reduced I suppose its not as nasty as it looks at first. But now there is almost no likelihood of a PC surviving a critical hit on his feet. How have people found this in playtests? I wonder if it reduces the enjoyment of the player whose PC is being taken out of the action marginally faster? DODGE Nice. How many people or attacks can you dodge? MAGIC The Spirit Plane I think that the Spirit Plane is invisible from the Mundane Plane but not the other way around. Spirits can see the healthy spirits of the living through the murky haze, though often it is impossible to tell if the spirits are human, plant or animal. However, undead creatures cannot be seen, nor those under the influence of spells such as Spirit Block or Spirit Screen. In addition the Brithini, Vadeli and many other Malkioni cannot be seen from the Spirit Plane - shamans suggest they are soulless. Spirits tied to beings living on the mundane plane are of a different hue to spirits living on the spirit plane, and they inhabit the "edge" of the spirit plane closest to the mundane. Spirits on the Spirit Plane cannot normally interact with anything on the mundane plane. The obvious exception to this is if a visibility spell is cast upon them. However some spirits have a double life, partly in the mundane plane and partly not, such as ghosts. Ghosts can interact with anything which comes into the area they are bound into - the binding being caused by some traumatic action, horrific experience or magic. Other spirits of the spirit plane can interact with the mundane plane at certain times in limited ways. E.g. Nightmare spirits can plague mundane beings whose defenses are weakened (for psychological reasons maybe, or perhaps the act of dreaming weakens the barrier between planes). Passion spirits and the like seem also to have a degree of influence over the unconscious parts of the minds of mundane beings, especially in times of stress. SPIRIT SENSE & SPIRIT LORE These are both welcome skills. SPIRIT COMBAT I'm still not happy about the concept of a skill that anyone can get better in. The basis of the combat should be POW, the measure of will - since this is a struggle of wills. Certainly a shaman, and to a lesser extent his trusted apprentices, should have some sort of advantage in combat due to their spiritual attunement and knowledge. However, any old joe public shouldn't be able to rival a shaman just by making a few lucky experience rolls or by copious research - they don't "know". I think the current system could be modified to make it more of an interesting spectacle. Another problem with the skill is the low level that players will start at, something which will most likely get them possessed the first time round. Though this depends on how much skill you are reckoning to give to an "average" spirit and to an "average" character. APPARENT EFFECTS OF MAGIC Another good idea. Spell Spirits I think spell spirits are the broken and lost spirits of apostates, atheists and forever-dead Brithini. The spells that they know are among the few shards of knowledge that these spirits still possess. They are prey to stronger spirits, other denizens of the Grey zone, and shamans. Once a shaman has contacted a spell spirit does it make it easier to contact next time around? Does the shaman have some control over it? Does he discover its true name of something? Temples Site: This doesn't really work for me as written. Is it true that typically a site has no worshippers? If it is a holy site to a specific deity then it should detect as magical, or at least potentially magical. Usually such places have a meaning in the local mythology of the deity, e.g. Goodtalk Stone in Lismelder lands is the place where it is said that Issaries once stopped to admire the Big Elm Valley. Greydog clan members always reckon they will get a good deal if they trade at this spot - maybe they're right, maybe they're not. SORCERY Lunar Sorcery. Lunar sorcery stems only from the magic of the Red Goddess. However there are various schools of Lunar magic, some of which are more spirit magic based, others which owe more to Malkioni wizardry, and even a few that have elements of divine magic too. There are few Malkioni sorcerers in the Empire, and those that exist are often solitary individuals whose activities are frowned upon by the authorities. According to the information I have (the Malkioni cult) ostensibly the Carmanian heresy is extinct in Carmania and has no followers. In actual fact it is the basis of Lunar magic, the Red Goddess having taken over the role of the Invisible God. The current draft sorcery rules contradict the status of the Carmanian Heresy and in doing so hit at the very basis of Lunar magic. Is this official? In addition the current write-up makes it seem as if the Carmanian Heresy was a mainstream sorcery sect - this has never been true. Rules. As with Divad Llah, my ambivalence to sorcery rules and spells is well-known. According to other gamers I've spoken to the new rules are fine and workable. However, all of them say that they never saw any problems with the old ones. [From Jon Quaife: The idea of removing Free INT from the system strikes chords of horror which hover along my spinal cord. Sorcery is easy to deal with if defined as follows: i) ESTABLISH NUMBER OF MAGIC POINTS TO BE EXPENDED. Maximum number of MP's that may expended = Free INT + 1 ii) ESTABLISH INTENSITY. Allot MP's for intensity; 1 MP = 1 Intensity. iii) ESTABLISH DURATION. Allot MP's for duration per duration table (in RQ3); note that 0 MP's for duration still means the spell lasts 10 minutes. Instant spell may not be durated; active spells may be durated but may expire when the caster ceases to concentrate on them. iv) ESTABLISH RANGE. Allot MP's for range; 0 MP's = 10 meters range. v) EMPLOY MULTISPELL. Each MP expended using multispell allows one extra spell to be cast at no extra MP cost. Range touch spells do not gain range in this manner, active spells do not become passive, etc. vi) ROLL DICE. The casting takes a number of Strike Ranks equal to MP's expended; the % chance of success is equal to that of the lowest skill employed (spell skill, intensity, duration, range, or multispell). A critical means the whole casting costs 1 MP; a fumble means the casting fails with all MP's in the casting being expended and lost. E.g. Sobros' Free INT is 12; therefore he can expend 13 MP's on one sorcery spell casting. He may cast Venom at intensity 13 in dire straits, spending 13 MP's on intensity and 0 MP's on range, duration and multispell. He has a regular routine also; each morning he casts enhance APP and damage resistance on himself. He allots 1 MP for multispell to allow the second spell to be incorporated into one casting, and 7 MP's for 21 hours duration. & + 1 = 8, therefore both spells may be cast at intensity 5, using up Sobros' remaining 5 MP's available (13-8 = 5). vii) MATRICES. Sorcery skills may be enchanted into matrices; they increase the sorcerer's magic point limit above his Free INT + 1. Thus a Venom 4 matrix would allow Sobros to expend 17 MP's on a casting (his usual 13 plus 4 for the matrix), so long as 4 of them are expended upon range. A damage resistance intensity 15 matrix would allow Sobros to expend 28 MP's, of which 15 must be expended on Intensity. viii) BOOSTING SPELLS. MP's' may be used to boost spells to defeat magical defenses; these extra magic points have no bearing on spell manipulation or Free INT, although they will increase casting time. Let me know if this is a clearer definition than that currently presented in RQ. My contention is that the major flaw with the sorcery system is its lack of cultural affiliation; the game mechanics are OK once properly defined. ] GAMESMASTER BOOK Armour. Some account needs to be taken of cultural knowledge of armour making. Can a Hsunchen really get his armourer to make Chainmail or Light Plate? Bull. Why is a bull four times the price of a cow? The offspring of cattle are 50:50 male and female. Should this be "Breeding Bull" or "Prize Bull"? Where are the Oxen prices? Mules are an Issaries specialty so does this increase their price? Mules cannot reproduce with each other. Horse, War (Untrained). Is this category really needed. What is the difference between a Cavalry Horse and an untrained war-horse? I reckon the prices here should be in a range, and not absolutes. It depends on all sorts of things such as the physical characteristics of the horse, its temperament,etc. Slaves. I think a female was rated at the value of one cow in Viking society. Weregeld. This is an Orlanthi (Viking) term related to the price paid to the kin of a person murdered or manslaughtered. In Orlanthi society different social and cultural positions have different weregelds - not necessarily related to income. I don't think the term is relevant in this section anymore. END  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA04298; Thu, 17 Jun 93 18:05:16 -0500 Return-Path: <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01394; Thu, 17 Jun 93 19:05:12 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Thu, 17 Jun 93 19:05:14 EDT From: Nick Brooke <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: COMMENTS (1) from David Hall Date: 17 Jun 93 19:00:26 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <1E1FC4C5958@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> David Hall said I could post these to the RQ4 Playtest Line (he decided not to join it himself when I told him how the mail-forwarding software works). The comments were written last September (same time as mine), and like them never had any feedback or discussion. So the same caveat applies: our ideas will have changed somewhat in the last eight months, but we weren't about to waste time honing them by talking to brick walls. Hope you enjoy these (two parts in total). -- Nick __________________________________________________________ COMMENTS ON RUNEQUEST 4 from David Hall WARNING! Many of my comments may be destructive rather than constructive. This is because my approach to gaming and rules is for a rules-lite, role-playing and story-telling system more akin to the Pendragon approach. I prefer a simple, fast, and exciting epic style, where I want the overall effect to be realistic and satisfying, but where I do not mind sacrificing the detailed minutia to do this. This RQ4 draft rules set seems to be taking RQ along a Wargamer simulate-everything-that-moves path. Unfortunately, I believe that in the search for the holy grail of rules minutia and realism you can never go too far - indeed I would argue that you can never stop. Trying to simulate reality, and a weird reality of imagination and myth, is ultimately impossible. In essence my approach to RPG's is poles apart from the current draft. WARNING! I have a nasty tendency to use "sarcasm". Sometimes this is to illustrate a point I feel cannot be stressed in other ways. At other times it is a sign of complete frustration. Rules Design Rules should be designed around the game world or genre. All the best rules systems are customised to the genre. James Bond has Hero Points and Seduction, Cthulhu has Sanity, and Pendragon has personality traits and passions. When doing RQ4 some thought should be given to what is being simulated: Glorantha. The rules should ooze Glorantha, something that RQ3 never did, and that even RQ1/2 was never given enough freedom to do. Following on from the above, there are two ways RQ4 could have gone. Firstly, it could have been an all-new rules system, involving a jump in rules design and concept akin to that of Runequest to Pendragon. Something designed purely with Glorantha in mind, perhaps something both playable and fast-moving. Secondly, it could have been a rules update and amendment - in computer jargon an RQ3.1. It would have a few minor rules tweaks and changes, concentrating on those areas that over time have been shown to be weak or just poorly explained. Something which would be 90% recognisable and familiar to existing users. In fact, the current RQ4 draft is neither of these. It is patently not the former, and there is too little of the rules which has not been replaced or changed for it to be the latter. It is in fact a new rules system, because people will have to re-learn almost all of the rules. This I feel is the worst outcome - it certainly isn't what was promised or even mooted. RQers are going to feel confused and unfamiliar with these new rules. Yet all the rules promise is a better way of doing exactly the same thing. And for me, from what I can see, that way isn't superior to RQ3. I'm also worried that at Convulsion Ken Rolston stated that any changes presented in the final RQ4 would not result in having to re-issue the complete line of RQ supplements (apart from a few exceptions, which included Maneouvre, fatigue and spirit combat). I don't think that statement is born out by the rules draft I have seen. So is this draft in some ways a draft for an RQ5 edition? Or is there a problem with the original specification for the project? For that matter what is/was the specification? Lastly, is RQ seen as a direct rival to D&D? Is it aimed at the Lowest Common Denominator? Is it now being designed to compete for that same market? My firm belief (from my experience of UK players) is that existing RQ players and GMs are more discriminating and sophisticated than most RPG players, i.e. D&Ders. If you agree, then the rules should be designed for discriminating and sophisticated people. Some common sense being assumed, as well as a fair degree of role-playing experience. To do otherwise risks alienating your market. General Comments I'd like to see some of the reasons (justifications?) behind many of the rules changes. These are presented as the draft of the eventual rules and it would be nice to know what the reasoning was behind the choice of which rules to change, and the reasons for the specific changes. Detailed Comments DETERMINING CHARACTERISTICS Some thought should be given to Glorantha-sising the characteristic determination. Different cultures may have different modifiers to characteristics, e.g. Lunars get +1 DEX & +1 POW to the rolled numbers. See David Dunham's PenDragon Pass in issue #6 ofTales. DAMAGE MODIFIER I never perceived any problem with this table in RQ3. Why change it (and make it longer)? For the sake of changing it? Or for mathematical completeness? Too many minor/marginal/petty changes will alienate RQ3 players. D2's are messy, as are +2 bonuses. SKILLS CATEGORY MODIFIERS. Agility. Seems like another marginal change. Stealth. I dislike the idea of secondary negatives - especially as it has to be added for just one category. The simplest alternative is to drop POW as a negative factor. PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE I'm not sure about the approach here. The problem with giving characters the choice of skills is that they choose the ones that make their shiny swords work better and ignore the ones that they would logically learn from their culture of birth. It tends to lead to unbalanced characters. E.g. Orlanthi who can't jump, recite poetry or farm. The previous system lead to balanced characters with the right number of relevant skills and skill levels for their chosen occupation. Its only real disadvantage was that it was only completely accurate up to the age of 30 or 40. After that there were problems (the 80-year old farmer with a lethal sword skill), for which some common sense was required to sort out. I think the best approach is to iron out that problem rather than embark on a whole new system. If this system were used it would make redundant all the previous experience sections in Elder Secrets, Glorantha, and Troll Pack. This would probably require a reprint of those packs at a later date. That said: Why does a civilised guy get Scout (Terrain)? If it is Scout (Urban) then why is it only +10%. Maybe it should be replaced with Streetwise +20%? Why does everybody from a Storyteller to a thief have basic combat skills? Surely combat skills are only basic to soldiers in civilised cultures, most professions in barbarian cultures, and everyone in nomadic cultures. For anyone else, especially anyone civilised, they are entirely optional. It should cost a storyteller or a merchant more to purchase weapon skills. Cultural Background I think the Primitive, Nomad, Barbarian and Civilised cultures and tables should be replaced with specific Gloranthan examples. e.g. Rathorelan, Praxian, Orlanthi, Lunar. There is no longer such a need for generic examples when you have Gloranthan ones available. Magical Background The ability to learn sorcery is very much linked to the sect of Malkionism that the PC comes from. It depends on the attitude to castes, parents, and movement within castes, etc. Becoming an initiate. Everyone in Glorantha is an initiate of a religion - their parents religion. Every member (defined as 85% by Greg Stafford) of a Theyalan Barbarian culture is initiated into the religion of Orlanth & Ernalda as a part of their adulthood rites. Every child born to a Malkioni region is baptised into the local sect of Malkionism. It is only later that they may join an affiliated religion appropriate to their profession (though this is usually the same one). So, should it cost a background point? SKILLS My first impression is that there are a lot more. I'm against that. Once you open the flood gates where do you stop? Many of these skills should be secret cult skills, or secret society skills. Such is the nature of Glorantha. They should be explored in the cult write-ups and not in the basic rules. Or it should be explicitly stated in their write-up that they can only be taught and/or learnt by certain cults. Easy, Medium, Hard, Very Hard and Very Very Hard skills are just added complication and character sheet clutter. Why bother? Acrobatics. There needs to be a skill like this but I'd argue that it is a cult specific skill, a secret skill. It needs to be added to Donander or the Puppeteer troop. Balance and Breakfall. Again these are secret skills that should be part of a cult or secret society. I don't think they're pertinent to put in the main rules. The old generic DEX x 5 roll or Jump skill covered these fine in RQ3. If you add all these myriad of skills for each eventuality and discourage the use of the generic Characteristic roll you'll end up with a "skill-dependency culture" - i.e. hundreds of obscure and weird skills. OK for individual campaign, but for the basic rules... March. Hmm... It seems a bit of an overkill to have a skill devoted to one small part of the fatigue rules. Does the ability of a soldier to experience less fatigue when marching come from being fitter and in better physical shape, or having a skill in marching, i.e. knowing extra tricks and techniques? Does this knowledge rise as slowly as skills do in RQ? Does the use of the skill suffer from the complete success/abject failure precipice which a percentile die success/fail roll leads to? Do you either succeed or fail at, or is it something that when known can always (or almost always) be applied? My investigations of a couple of UK soldiers suggests it's more physical fitness than any sort of skill. Nor should it be something that is rolled for and that you can therefore "fail". Couldn't a soldier just get a better CON multiplier instead? Or two CON rolls instead of one? Or both? Run. Again I think making a skill out of running isn't a good idea. Running doesn't work like the RQ skill mechanism works. I don't know enough about this, but I suspect there is some skill to running in terms of breathing techniques and running style, but the majority of it is physical fitness in the correct characteristics. Maybe 25% Skill and 75% characteristics. The RQ skill system allows a distribution more like 80% skill and 20% characteristics - with minuscule characteristic effect at higher skill levels. I reckon the fatigue aspects can be covered by some mix of CON and SIZ. Speed can be a function of DEX and STR. Also, bear in mind that most PC's tend to put their skill points into neat magic and sharp pointed things. Most will not put anything into Run. However in my experience PC's also tend to spent every spare waking minute training their characteristics up like hell. So you can have the situation where there are all these mega-high CON PC's, who've been on loads of runs to get their CON up, but under these rules they can't run for two minutes without falling over and throwing up with exhaustion. While the 95% runner with STR 3, CON 3, SIZ 18 & DEX 3 cruises past them at Mach 4, and runs half-way around the continent of Genertela without drawing breath. Well, maybe that's what happens in your Glorantha... Act. Donander & Thief cult skill Beg & Bribe. Can't these can be subsumed into the Fast Talk skill? Debate. A Knowledge God special skill? Frankly in a Fantasy game its function can quite adequately be covered by Fast Talk, Orate and a bit of role-play. Intimidate. Is it really necessary to have a skill like this? It's just another skill that limits role-play. Intimidating situations are what GM's and players do best. I don't know about you lot but to me it's beginning to look like this: RuneQuest: the SPG (Skill Playing Game) Hey, you know what we really need is a "Make Joke" skill. Hmm... then we'd need "Tell Joke" and "Comic Timing". Or perhaps it should be Craft Satirical Joke, Craft Slapstick Joke, etc...? Of course, as Greg Stafford suggests, we will then need a Appreciate Joke skill. What do you think? Sing. Another skill that the RQ mechanics fail to make believable. Under the current rules 90% of the population sing like Lee Marvin. I'd suggest the base skill be put up to 25 or 30%. Or allow everyone to roll a d100 randomly for their starting skill. Administrate. Hmm... do we have to? Mostly a useless and unplayable skill. Now, I realise that one reason for all these new skills is to allow NPC's to be defined by them. But I think this its a bit of an overkill. It is possibly better done by writing up a decent character profile of the NPC. Saying such things as "He is an incompetent administrator" or "He has a large and intimidating presence". I'd much prefer, as a GM, to role-play an incompetent administrator rather than have my life ruled by die rolls, and risk the embarrassment of rolling a critical success against Administrate 5%. It just seems a long and verbose way round the problem. Battle. You need to add that Battle cannot be researched (how can you research savvy?) and that only war cults can train people. There is a case for a whole new section in the rules on Battles and related skills. Akin to the Pendragon system approach. Craft. You may want to add Farming and Animal Husbandry to the list. Are you dodging the alchemy rules with this skill? Are there no base alchemical skills that you need before you can learn Craft (Blade Venom)? Did you see that Greg Stafford wanted Blade venom out of the rules - see Tales #5, Notes to Alebard's Quest? Hawking. What's this doing here? Well... if you've got this in then please add my fave skills of Fox Hunting, Badger Baiting, and Cock- fighting. It's just not a relevant skill to describe in the basic rules. Intrigue. Same comments as Administrate apply. Martial Arts. Yup, and there's a Martial Arts Training centre in every village. Needs to be limited to the East, or to a cult or secret society. I hate the idea of it being introduced so early on, in the basic rules. Memorize. Secret Knowledge God skill? Treat Disease and Poison. Chalana Arroy cult skills. Set & Disarm Traps etc. I preferred the old Devise rules. Smacks of D&D to have all the PC's running around with this skill on their character sheets. Pickpocket & Pick Locks. These should be craft skills. Or else surely Craft Basketweaving should be a Manipulation skill? Drive (Vehicle). Only worshippers of Mastakos or Lokarnos can get training for this. Escape. I don't like the name. Foil Restraints is far clearer in meaning. Escape is too wide a term. Again a specialist skill. Fast Draw. Special cult secret skill. Dragonewt? Feel, Taste & Smell. If you are going to go the whole way on this you should replace the Search and Scan skills with See & Hear. Lip Read, Mimic, Juggle, Ventriloquism are really obscure special skills that need not be explored in the rules book.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA15270; Fri, 18 Jun 93 02:51:14 -0500 Return-Path: <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA09643; Fri, 18 Jun 93 03:49:21 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Fri, 18 Jun 93 3:51:11 EDT From: Nick Brooke <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Damage Bonus Date: 18 Jun 93 03:46:33 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <1EAB9204F38@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> OJ said of the Damage Bonus table in my Comments: > There is an error in that table on the far end. No, there's a deliberate discontinuity that makes it far easier to calculate huge creatures' damage bonuses. Not an error, though I understand if you don't like it. I just thought being able to divide STR+SIZ by six, round up, divide that by four (replacing each +4 with a 1D6) and keep the remainder as fixed adds was easier and cleaner than the existing system, with its crude breakpoints every 16 points of STR+SIZ above 56. I also thought that when a SIZ 100 creature hits you, you're unlikely to be too bothered about whether it does more or less damage than it would under RQ3 rules. It'll do enough, no? The earlier part of the table was designed to keep rough parity with RQ3, while not getting fiddly with the averages. Remember when assessing my rules that under them a sword would do 1D8 base damage, not 1D8+1 (the "+1" is the average user's damage bonus adding on). But, honestly, I'm not bothered. Let's get these rules to *feel* right, not frot ourselves away arguing about numbers that only need to balance against each other... Nick  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA16082; Fri, 18 Jun 93 03:56:52 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA10439; Fri, 18 Jun 93 04:54:59 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Fri, 18 Jun 93 4:56:51 EDT From: jjm@zycor.lgc.com (johnjmedway) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: SKILLS: Root/Branch Skills Date: Fri, 18 Jun 93 3:54:04 CDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <1EBD05B1912@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> >> From: apardon@vub.ac.be (Antoon Pardon) >> Subject: Ringworld root skills >> Date: Tue, 15 Jun 93 10:04:58 MDT originally mine: >> > Arguments for Losing Both: >> > >> > CHA could be replaced by interpreting one or more of the communication >> > skills. This would work especially well if the Ringworld root skill idea >> > is adapted, but nobody else seems to like that. >> Could you explain how the root skill system works? I would appreciate >> a little bit explanation. The skill system from Ringworld divided skills up into reasonably familiar categories, Agility, Communicatio:,.... Instead of deriving a skill group "bonus" from the character's stats, it described instead a "Root Skill Maximum" as follows: Agility: STR + DEX Communication: INT + APP Knowledge: INT + EDU Perception: POW + CON Technical: DEX + INT These would obviously need to be adjusted for RQ. All skills were described as either "Single" (i.e. normal RQ-esque skills), or as "Root/Branch Skills". Root/Branch Skills allowed a character to start with a rather generic skill, say "Melee Weapon", and improve it up to the limit of the "Root Skill Maximum". Further improvement of skill was also refinement of the root skill, and required specialization. Let's try a RQ-esque example involving the replacement for CHA which I argued: Locutious, an Ityries beginner, has a INT of 15, and an APP of 10. His Communication Root Skill Max. is thus 25%. Say we create a new "Root" Skill called "Persuade" and lump the following skills as branches of it: Bargain, Debate, Fast Talk, Orate. Locutious drops sufficient training time/ background points into Persuade and raises it to 20%. He thus has _all_ of the branches at 20%. When he drops sufficient points into the Root, such that thee skill % exceeds his Root Skill Max, he must apply the excess to _one_ of the Branch skills. Say he tries to raise Persuade another 20 points. Five points apply to raise Persuade to 25% (and all of the branches), leaving him with 15 points. This must be divided (by any manner desired) among the Branch skills, say in this case Bargain and Fast Talk. Thus, he has Bargain 35%, fast Talk 30%, and Persuade (which encompasses the others) at 25%. The character need not develop the root skill. For a lesser training cost, he could raise onee of the branches, before he maximizes the "root" value. The root max was Ringworld's way of benefitting those with natural talent. This also applies well to many crafts (Metalwork is root, Bronzesmith, Iron Smith, Tin Smith, etc. being branches) and Lores (Prax lore = root, Bison, Impala, Zebra, ... Long Dry Lore, Zola Fel Lore, ..., being branches). It also kills the possibility of having 90% World Lore (whatever that might be) and forces the Lhankor Mhy types to specialize, and become more interesting and unique characters. Yeah? So? We could also use this to allow a basic v. an advanced game. In this version of RQLite, the Root Max is set higher than normal, and characters need not specialize until much later. Likewise, areas of lesser interest in a campaign (Combat skills in a diplomatic game, diplomatic skills in a combat-oriented game) can be left more abstract, while central skill areas are developed. My 2 bolgs. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | john_medway@zycor.lgc.com | Landmark Graphics Corp | 512.292.2325 | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA17310; Fri, 18 Jun 93 05:40:24 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA11399; Fri, 18 Jun 93 06:38:27 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Fri, 18 Jun 93 6:40:23 EDT From: Mystic Musk Ox To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Skills, Firing into Groups Date: Fri, 18 Jun 93 10:47 BST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <1ED8A033269@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- A vague point that has worried me since RQ1 days (never had any characters with over 100% skill, so it actually hasn't come up in play...) If attack 101%+ subtracts from opponents parry, and parry 100%+ subtracts from attack, what happens if both sides have skill over 100? e.g if 120% attack vs 115% parry, does the 15% come off the attack first, reducing to 105%, which ten comes off parry, making it 110%, but oops, then the attack could have only been reduced 10%......etc? -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Skill contests. Really like the idea of levels of success e.g Special 6 beats Normal 5 etc. Much easier to use than the currently proposed system... Incidentally, has anyone considered using this system for combat rolls? It seems to me that combat is the only case where this is not proposed to be used. Perhaps even the same mechanics as Dodge i.e. a Critical Attack vs a Special Parry reduces the hit to a normal? Or some other tweak? -------------------------------------------------------------------------- A rule of my own: Re firing into groups. It always seemed dodgy to assign random chances of hitting a target in a crowd on 100/(number in crowd). At low skill levels yes, I can believe you might hit anyone, but I wanted a mechanism where higher levels could stand a better chance, to pick off certain enemies, and avoid hitting their own side... So, how about: +5% per member of a group over the first to hit chance (as per normal rules) Then, chance to hit specific target is skill% - 5% per member of group over the first. This percentage can never be modified below 100/(number in group)% e.g 30% skill fires at a crowd of 5. S/he gets + 20% to hit = 50%. If a hit is rolled, the MINIMUM chance of hitting the target desired is 100/5 = 20%. Since 30 - 20 = 10, the chance of hitting specified target is 20% (higher of the two) Later, 90% skill fires at a crowd of 5. +20% to hit = 110%. Minimum chance still = 100/5 = 20%. BUT, 90% - 20% = 70%, therefore the PC has a 70% chance of hitting their desired target, otherwise roll randomly. any comments? ----------------------------------------------------------------------  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA25480; Fri, 18 Jun 93 10:59:58 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA20868; Fri, 18 Jun 93 11:57:59 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Fri, 18 Jun 93 11:59:54 EDT From: burt@ptltd.com (Burton Choinski) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: COMMENTS and QUESTIONS and SUGGESTIONS, oh my! Date: Fri, 18 Jun 93 11:54:20 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <1F2DE341A28@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> i.e. yet another multi-reply letter. Cope. :) ------------------------------------------------------------ Oliver asks for comments: | A typical week for a would be adventurer holding down a full time job | in Pavis might be: | | 4 days of duties (job) | 1 day of practice (a job related skill, such as Craft ) | 1 day of training (weapons work with the local blademaster, | costing a pretty penny). | 1 day of socializing (going out with friends, talking to people). Much like my suggested 5 training points per week, which equals 50 hours which equals 5 days here. Rather then coping with all that, I think the basics can be given as 5 training points per week, plus 2 free points. Free points may be spent at double the training time for interactive skills, or just used to pick up contacts. Training points may be used extensively on practice, training and research. Note, one may convert Training points to free points, but not the other way around. So you can just socialize, if you wish. No need to define it in "days" -- just keep it abstract as that. | Duties typically yield a salary or are required by a | character's position in a cult or other organization, | and may yield some slight benefits (free practice of | duty related skills). If a character has duties, just eat into his training time and tell him "Your duities to your liege lord eat up 1 training point a week". | Socializing yields friends and contacts. A character that | does not spend one day a week socializing will have few | or no friends or contacts. Most characters will typically | have two or three friends or contacts (an exact number can be This is good stuff, but could be expanded. You may expend "free" points to get rolls for contacts or friends, increase native culture/lore/language skills, or other such stuff. | TRAINING | Days of training to increase a skill by = skill/10 Easier to just say "(Skill-Bonus)/10 equals training points required" | = 1d6 for a Medium skill, 1d3 for a Hard skill and 2d6 for | an Easy skill. How about just stating "1d6 for medium (normal) skills, halved for hard and doubled for easy skills." Get rid of the bell curve on easy skills to produce increases of 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 or 12 %. | Training can be expensive, and may be difficult to obtain, particularly at | higher skill levels. And this should be noted in te full rules, right here, as opposed to how they have services listed in RQ3 book 3. Or perhaps in detail here with a summery in the equipment/services chapter. | PRACTICE | Practice is studying something on your own with the proper techniques, | partners or equipment on hand, and takes twice as long as training | (training time x2), but is generally more affordable and easier to | arrange than training. Good addition. SO most of my players have been Practicing, rather then training. I doubt they'll like having their effective training times lopped.:) | RESEARCH | Research is studying something on your own with little or no background or | equipment on hand, and takes four times as long as training (training time | x4), but costs little or nothing. Some notes on research on things you have no skill in, like Sorcerous spells is needed. I have a sorcerer player who is trying to learn "Enchant Bronze". I have been abstracting this process to 1 roll per week in research, INT or less on 1d100. In cities with Sorcerous elements (they are in Carminia) I have given him INTx2 or less. Does this sound fair? | TEACHERS | A teacher can normally train someone effectively that has a skill level equal | to or lower than half theirs. If the students skill level is above half the | teacher's but equal to or below the teachers skill, it counts as practice for | the student. If the students skill level is greater than that of the | teachers, it counts as research for the student. This looks good. | INSTRUCT SKILL | Instruct skill enhances the effectiveness of a teacher. Add the teacher's | Instruct skill to the skill they are teaching (not to exceed twice the level | of the skill being taught) for the purposes of determining their ability to | teach). yes, much better use of Instruct. And I say this gives me an even better reason to add Martial Arts to the combat skill of the user (but not more the double)...same mechanic. :) | Agility Skills Category Modifier | STR + DEX - SIZ - 10 Check. At least it will balance, more or less. | Communication Skills Category Modifier | INT/2 + Original POW/2 + APP - 20 I must follow the others in this in saying that it only makes sense if APP is taken as personal presense or charisma, not physical attractiveness. | Magic Skills Category Modifier | Original POW + INT/2 + DEX/2 - 20 I disagree. The ability to manipulate should be base on INT, i.e. INT + Original POW/2 + DEX/2 - 20 | Manipulation Skills Category Modifier | STR/2 + INT/2 + DEX - 20 Looks okay. | Perception Skills Category Modifier | INT + Original POW/2 + CON/2 - 20 I think INT and CON should be revresed -- more based on health then mind: INT/2 + Original POW/2 + CON - 20 | Reasoning Skills Category Modifier | INT + Original POW - 20 I guess this is okay. | Stealth Skills Category Modifier | DEX + INT - SIZ/2 - Original POW/2 -10 Looks okey. | I would still retain a seperate category of Knowledge skills (skills | that can't be increased by experience, but if these represent skills | that are strictly learned, they really don't need a bonus in any case). No, they should be covered by something like: INT + INT - 20 | Damage Bonus - | It would be an added complication, but if we go with the point by point | damage bonus system, something like half the damage bonus is your | natural armor might work fairly well - humans would have one or two | points at most, which sounds about right. To be honest, I think that while STR+SIZ might be good for doling out damage, CON+SIZ is a better index for taking it. Just index your HP on the table to get this natural armor (min of 0). This natural armor should follow the normal armor layering rules. And as to that, What are the current armor layering rules? In general, I was thinking of the following: Low is equal to High: High+50% Low (round nearest) Low is 1-2 points lower: High+25% Low (round nearest) Low is 3+ points lower: High+10% Low (round nearest) This is off the cuff...the break numbers should be tweaked to how you want it. So, if a person with Natural 1 AP in heavy leather (AP 2) he gets 2+.25, rounded nearest to 2. In light leather he gets 1+.5, rounded up, for 2 as well. Due to his tougher skin he can get away with light leather, when his weaker friends need Heavy leather for the same protection. Following this, a man in plate (8) gets zilch for anything less then AP 5. At AP 5 he gains +1, at 6-8 he gets +1, +2 and +2, and at 8 he gets +4. Granted, he could only do that if this was light leather magically enhanced. | With respect to highly skilled fighters doing additional damage - to a | certain extent specials and criticals handle that already - however, one | of the best ideas I've seen suggested for this was by Brandon Bryslawski, | who suggested that characters be allowed to subtract from their | chance to hit in exchange for doing extra damage - something like | +1 damage for every 20% subtracted from your skill - this would | let highly skilled fighters (such as a Rune Lord with 140% attack) | do 2 or 3 extra points of damage per blow. Might make for a good optional | rule. I think my players would like this rule. How does extending this to parry, when you may slight your parry skill to add to the AP (i.e. you put more skill into getting proper angles)? ============================================================ Paul comments on Oliver's message: | SKILLS NOTE: Most Craft Skills should go under Manipulation. Have you seen | an armorer at work? If so you'll agree that Dexterity should go in the | Armoring mod. Similarly with sewing, tailoring, etc. The idea of a | person with 18 INT but Str 4, Dex 3 being able to become a master blacksmith | is a bit absurd, isn't it? Move it over to manipulation - I want my smiths | burly. I have to agree with this. "Craft" sounds more like "knowing a craft" rather then in the sense of "Work Iron". The skill definition should be refined to reflect the latter, and those skills should be put as manipulation. Others that seem more intelligence based can be Reasoning or Knowldege skills. ============================================================ John J Medway, with Chaosium/Ringworld notes | All skills were described as either "Single" (i.e. normal RQ-esque skills), | or as "Root/Branch Skills". Root/Branch Skills allowed a character to start | with a rather generic skill, say "Melee Weapon", and improve it up to the | limit of the "Root Skill Maximum". Further improvement of skill was also | refinement of the root skill, and required specialization. | | Let's try a RQ-esque example involving the replacement for CHA which I | argued: Interesting. This eliminates the "beginning %" that skills like climb and scan and hide have? -- Burton  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA28952; Fri, 18 Jun 93 12:12:20 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA23764; Fri, 18 Jun 93 13:10:23 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Fri, 18 Jun 93 13:12:17 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Comments+Impressions Date: Fri, 18 Jun 93 13:10:25 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <1F4123C60D2@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> GENERAL COMMENT: CHANGE "ADVENTURER" to "COMBATANT" in the Combat Draft. "adventurer is a poor choice of word to describe city guards and giant beetles! "Combatant" is a good word to describe anyone in combat. Paul rep. to Graeme > Paul > Myles > I support the highest roll in a category as the simplest system as well Good. Should this go into the next playtest draft as a alternative opposed skill system? Then playtesters could comment. >The only problem is that if someone had 150% skill then >they would be unaffected by fatigue until they suddenly collapsed. My idea is that people with 150% skill are not only _better_, they are more _efficient_ and should collapse when their skills get down near zero. I _know_ that I can trash a novice pole arm fighter in better physical shape than I am without breaking a sweat and leave him gasping for breath. I spend less energy than he does because my skill is greater. The novice wastes a _lot_ of evergy on useless attacks and overblocking. _______________ DAMAGE BONUS: I reiterate: The current system is fairly simple. Minor changes will cause people to have to memorize a new table. I bet that most of the initial sales of RQ4 (first 3 yrs at least) will be long time RQ players. This table has been the same in RQ2 and 3, don't know about 1. Why make minor changes when it is something people use a lot and know? If you want a major change like basing damage on the person with modifiers from the weapon then go ahead but why bother with minor changes that hardly affect the average damage? _______ ROOT SKILLS: Good idea, we had a point-based game called Yggdrasil developed by a friend of mine which used this concept. Someone should write up a good proposal. _______________ >Skill contests. Really like the idea of levels of success e.g Special 6 beats >Normal 5 etc. Much easier to use than the currently proposed system... >Incidentally, has anyone considered using this system for combat rolls? We use it as a 'quick combat system'. Average the Attack and Parry skills to get a single weapons skill. Roll a quick contest, loser gets hit. Useful for duels or other situations with just two combatants, skips ahead to the good part when someone gets hit. Really speeds things up, works just like other contests of skill to see who is better. Great for when pompous Orlanthi meet each other and just have to have a friendly dominance fight. If you want to keep track of round by round combat use the regualar system. ___________  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA01265; Fri, 18 Jun 93 13:06:31 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25663; Fri, 18 Jun 93 14:04:37 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Fri, 18 Jun 93 14:06:29 EDT From: jjm@zycor.lgc.com (johnjmedway) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: SKILL CONTESTS + REDEFINE CRITICALS? Date: Fri, 18 Jun 93 13:04:14 CDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <1F4F9AD3C05@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> >> From: Mystic Musk Ox >> Subject: Skills, Firing into Groups >> Date: Fri, 18 Jun 93 10:47 BST >> >> Skill contests. Really like the idea of levels of success e.g Special 6 beats >> Normal 5 etc. Much easier to use than the currently proposed system... Yes, but, this is one of those unfortunate spots where I really wish we could redefine "Special" and "critical" et al. It just feels odd when you have to com- pare two characteristics of the same roll in this fashion. What if Criticals were redefined to be any die roll ending in "0", and Specials, any die roll ending in "8" or "9"? (Yes I know this increases the chance of criticals, but bear with me.) Then we would have Critical Success = successful roll ending in "0", and critical failure = failed roll ending in "0". We'd have Special Success and Failure with similar simple, non-computational methods. This would provide an easy method of brancing out degrees of success and failure, as several people have hinted would be desirable. We could then use the simplified Pendragon-style contest of skills, with or with- out the categories of Special & Critical being considered. No need to figure either "is this less than my skill by more than the other guys rolled less than his skill", or other similar rubbish. We also don't need to record whether something was a Special or Critical result. Just record the number to beat. >> Incidentally, has anyone considered using this system for combat rolls? >> It seems to me that combat is the only case where this is not proposed to >> be used. Perhaps even the same mechanics as Dodge i.e. a Critical Attack vs >> a Special Parry reduces the hit to a normal? Or some other tweak? It would be a heinous mess, unless the computation of what is & what is not a Critical/Special result was simplified. If it was simplified, as above, then it might bee a very good idea. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | john_medway@zycor.lgc.com | Landmark Graphics Corp | 512.292.2325 | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA00954; Fri, 18 Jun 93 12:55:44 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25200; Fri, 18 Jun 93 13:53:49 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Fri, 18 Jun 93 13:55:41 EDT From: "Loren J. Miller" To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: FATIGUE Date: 18 Jun 1993 13:55:45 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <1F4CC9D0742@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> First Graeme complains that the fatigue rules that just subtract 20xN% from physical skills aren't tough enough on weapons masters with skills over 100%, and then later in the post complains that the difference between 140% and 100% skill isn't as important as the difference between 100% and 60%, despite the extreme difficulty of attaining skills over 100%. Which side of the fence are you on? Personally I think that the fatigue advantage would be an excellent way to differentiate between weapons masters and mere mortals. Otherwise the only difference is an improved special and critical chance. > I may have misunderstood Loren of > course: did you propose a limiting integer, say con/2, before > collapse? Also, did fatigue accrue automatically at the end of every > rounds, or was the Con*X rule of the draft still in effect? I'd leave the CONx5 rule in, and didn't want a limiting integer. I would prefer the rules to give an advantage to people with high skill levels, an advantage that the current rules don't offer. I'd want to playtest it, especially the willpower thing, before finalizing it, but won't have that opportunity for quite a while. whoah, +++++++++++++++++++++++23 Loren Miller internet: MILLERL@wharton.upenn.edu "Science" does not remove the terror of the gods.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA05091; Fri, 18 Jun 93 14:37:18 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA29220; Fri, 18 Jun 93 15:35:19 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Fri, 18 Jun 93 15:37:17 EDT From: JOVANOVIC@CUCCFA.CCC.COLUMBIA.EDU To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: RE: Damage Bonus Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1993 15:36:52 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <1F67C801780@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Actually, Nick, I was referring to the damage bonus table in the RQIV draft (at least the first one), which had an error in its high end - I wasn't talking about your table, which I think is fine (as a simplifying assumption). Frankly, I like the idea of simply adding a straight damage bonus - if you're going to change damage bonus so that it is smoother than the old system, might as well make it simpler to use at the same time. Oliver  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA08304; Fri, 18 Jun 93 15:57:00 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA02717; Fri, 18 Jun 93 16:55:06 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Fri, 18 Jun 93 16:56:57 EDT From: gharris@Jade.Tufts.EDU To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" <> Subject: Sorcery, Pow, Training Date: Fri, 18 Jun 93 16:54:31 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <1F7CE2A54EF@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> I thought I'd do a little follow-up on my sorcery comments, and then give my opinion on a few other areas of the RQ4 rules. SORCERY Just to clarify things, I think that similarities between a sorceror's Twin and a shaman's fetch should be DEemphasized. Really, these two schools of magic are about as dissimilar as possible, so adding a clear parallel like this is a big jump. Thus, I don't think there should be any very stressful trial for a sorceror to gain a Twin. This would be governed by the sorceror's training and the society in which the sorceror lives. I don't think this is in danger of being unbalancing, as as has been pointed out, the sorceror's Twin is much less useful than a shaman's fetch. Also, I generally dislike the idea of some sort of spiritual upkeep being necessary for a Twin. I think any sort of vows or geasa kept by sorcerors should for the most part be cultural, much like Catholic priests' vows of celibacy or some orders of nuns' or monks' vows of silence or poverty or any of a number of other things. If one insists on having these be magical vows, I would say have them be means of *increasing* the power of the Twin rather than be necessary for attaining it. That said, let me say definitively here that I much prefer the idea of just making exponential duration (and perhaps range) ritual rather than creating some new mechanic for sorcery such as the Twin. The reasons for this are twofold. One, backwards compatibility. Many have scoffed at this requirement, expressing the opinion that no one uses RQ3 sorcery anyway, and that any who did could continue to do so. Well, I'm afrain they are mistaken. We have already heard of other campaigns that have multiple sorcerors, and the campaign in which I am currently involved has two PC sorcerors and countless NPCs. Making changes as to the types and extents of manipulations allowed and the way some of the skills work doesn't require any real conversion of characters, merely reevaluation of their capabilities. Creating a new concept such as the Twin would force any players with magus characters to do wholesale overhauls of their character, which is something to be avoided if possible. Two, I prefer the system of using skills to limit manipulations and ritual exponential manipulations becuase it tends to make sorcerors *less* naturally powerful. For a sorceror to become more powerful and capable of maintaining more and better spells, he would be required to improve his skills. At the levels where they become very useful this will be a time- consuming and tiresome process, requiring much deliberate effort. However, if a sorceror's prowess increased with his Twin, then it pretty much advances as he gains POW. This process tends to happen at its own rate regardless of effort, so just by surviving a sorceror would gradually become more powerful. Of these two models, I much prefer the former, in part because it distinguishes sorcerors from priests and shamans. Now, the only real objection to this system I have seen is that by creating spell matrices and enchanting Duration into them, a sorceror can still become unbalancing. Well, the solution to this is simple, and in fact has already been incorporated into the draft rules: prohibit the enchantment of sorcerous manipulations into matrices. In ither words, just have a spell matrice increase the casters effective percentage in the spell, allowing hir to manipulate the spell more, but still limit the amount of each manipulation to the caster's skill in that manipulation divided by ten. Matrices would still be useful, as they would allow a magus to combine different high-level manipulations, but they would not increase the amount of any single manipulation available to the magus. Oh, one other suggestion I saw in tandem with the ritual magic suggestion was to decrease a magus' spell-casting chance by some set amount for each point of manipulation used (I believe this was mentioned by Joerg Baumgartner [hope I got that right]). I think this is a decent idea, as it makes it easier to cast smaller spells, which is certainly a reasonable effect that one might want to model. I believe the suggestion was -5% for each point of manipulation. I think that would be okay for range and duration, but that -2% per point of intensity would also be reasonable, since there are many sorcery spells that require a reasonable level of intensity to be at all effective (Palsy, Skin of Life, etc). In general, sorcery tends to be about half as effective as spirit magic on a per magic point basis. On the whole, I think a lot of the ideas put forth for a sorcery system using runic manipulation skills, having a sorceror create a Twin and enhance his magical abilities by taking vows and taking on geasa are excellent ideas, and could lead to a really atmospheric and interesting magic system. Unfortunately, I don't think that it would be good to patch it on to RuneQuest. One, it wouldn't be compatible with previous characters, which *is* a valid concern, even if you personally don't have any sorcery-using characters in your campaign. Two, it would (IMHO) give a very non-Gloranthan flavor to the magic. Something that is generally true of Gloranthan magic is that it is powered by POW and magic points. Having sorcery be powered by subverted carnal desires just doesn't fit. While it is true that many sorcery-using cultures make special requirements of their wizards (the Rokari and the Kingtroll sorcerors have been mentioned), I think it is perfectly reasonable for these requirements *not* to have any real game effect, that is, for them to be cultural. Are there not requirements of thanes in Orlanthi Barbarian societies that are restrictive, and yet do not directly give them more power? How about Khans? In our world, what do priests get out of celibacy? I think that giving strictly historical and cultural explanations for these restrictions is reasonable, and, for consistency's sake, desirable. To change the focus a little bit, there is one suggestion made in the sorcery rules for which I fail to see any motivation, either in the context of Glorantha or from a game-balance viewpoint. This is the change that sorcerors be required to learn each different type of enchantment and summoning spell as a separate skill, rather than use the general Enchant and Summon skills. My main question is, why? The only possible need I would see for this would be if it were easier for sorcerors to attain high power levels, and you need to require them to learn these as separate skills to slow them down. This isn't true, though, since a sorceror needs to train in Intensity, Duration, and Range, all hard skills, as well as in a host of separate spells. Generally, it will take a sorceror *much* longer to attain competence than for a priest or shaman, so forcing them to learn different skills for Enchant Magic Point Matrix, Enchant Spell Matrix, Enchant Iron, etc. seems to be adding insult to injury. The only possible rationale for this would be if Enchant and Summon were only useful to one particular school of magic, and their utility doesn't extend to sorcery. However, this isn't true, either. Enchant and Summon are both used in exactly the same way by spirit magic users and divine magic users. Now, spirit magic and divine magic are about as different as you can get. Why Enchant and Summon should work for both of them, but not for sorcery, is difficult for me to fathom. So, I would strongly suggest that sorcerors continue to use the Enchant and Summon skills in the same way they always have, and in the same way the spirit and divine magic users continue to do. POW, APP and CHA. I think that some sort of change certainly seems to be made in APP, moving it at least partly back in the direction of CHA in RQ2. However, I don't see it as replacing the various communication skills (bargain, etc) either. I like the idea of a characteristic which somehow represents what people think of you and how you carry yourself. In other words, CHA would note be an entirely inherent stat, but would represent to some extent your relationship with your culture. I think it would be reasonable for CHA to go up under certain circumstances under this interpretation (the old CHA checks), eg when one attains mastery of a skill, or performs some public service. Since the downgrading of CHA to APP, people have wanted to pin a lot of this on POW, which I think is more appropriately reserved as a measure of magical strength. I oppose basing one's chance of increasing one's POW on one's initial POW. While this would to some extent model something frequently seen in literature, it would also make trying to play a character that started with a very low POW extremely frustrating. As to the idea of just using starting POW for skill modifiers, I think this would best be presented as an optional rule, after pointing out the potential problems of having modifiers based on a stat that fluctuates frequently (it has always been my custom to record the modifier separtely from the skill, so I only need to change one number. This rules change would gain me nothing). TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE I have never seen skill check frenzy very much, so I question the need for limiting the number of skills rolls available to the characters by GM whim. I have always seen the mechanical nature of the RQ experience system as a strength, and think requiring more GM interference is unnecessary. However, I do think it would be valuable ot include this suggestion as an optional rule, after noting the potential problem of skill check frenzy. This would be a case of leaving something alone in campaigns where it works, but offering a fix if there is a problem. I think this would be the best approach in this area. I also like Oliver's proposed simplification of the training rules. Eliminating the need for Instruct rolls is a big plus, as is the option of removing the skill bonus from the training time. This change would also allow the construction of training charts (using the default values), which would make getting characters through long periods of relative inactivity much simpler. Well, all for now. More later.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA08199; Fri, 18 Jun 93 15:55:08 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA02656; Fri, 18 Jun 93 16:53:11 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Fri, 18 Jun 93 16:55:06 EDT From: Tom Zunder To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Damage Bonus Date: Fri, 18 Jun 93 21:37 GMT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <1F7C9DC4A27@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Please don't change the old damage bonuses or hit point location tables. They're not broken. Also the new spirit magic should use an identical structure to the damage bonus one, I think. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Orlanth Rex! tzunder@cix.compulink.co.uk --------------------------------------------------------------------  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA10327; Fri, 18 Jun 93 16:50:45 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA04578; Fri, 18 Jun 93 17:50:37 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Fri, 18 Jun 93 17:50:42 EDT From: mabeyke@batman.b11.ingr.com (boris) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: FATIGUE, MOSTLY Date: Fri, 18 Jun 93 16:52:05 CDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <1F8BEB90910@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Some Friday afternoon brainstorming on some things. Several people have commented about how simple it was to recover from fatigue in the new system. This strikes me as a bit off also. A partial fix for this would be to require a CONxN roll (N based on ENC level) to to recover. This roll should be affected by the same fatigue modifiers used for everything else. Whatever they end up being. Also, there should be some way for short term fatige to cause long term fatigue. If someone spends an hour running sprints, he's going to take more than a minute of two to recover. One way could be that whenever someone drops to exhausted, they lose fatigue class to LTF unless a CON roll is made. If Loren's system is used, then could say that every fourth STF level gives one LTF level. This will problably require some more thought and adjustment. The idea of just a straight skill modifier reflecting those with high skills outlasting those less skilled has one flaw. It seems that you say that if a master with a 130% skill and a novice with 30% skill spar for several rounds, they will eventually both accrue a -30% to skills from fatigue, which incapacitates the novice but allows the master to continue with 100% skill. Unfortunately if the master then goes and picks up a sword that he's a novice with, he's suddenly incapacitated. In real life, the master would still be fresh, because he didn't work as hard. A good, simple fix for this might be hard to devise, and more trouble than it's worth. One possible solution could be to add the difference in skills to the higher person's CONxN value, making it much less likely for a master to tire while fighting a novice, but two masters would be more evenly matched. And with this, returning to the reduction in autofailure level makes some sense. I like Loren's fatigue rule for the most part. Perhaps make it require a longer rest to recover a fatigue level, since one may be regained with an MP roll. I also like the root/branch skill idea; I'll have to go reread my Ringworld rules. From playtesting, I've noticed it's a pain in the butt to count melee rounds for fatigue; it's not something I normally do unless I'm concerned about timing for some other reason. Therefor, I propose the following optional rule; each round, the GM rolls a d5. If it comes up one, everybody check for fatigue. The rate of loss will be nearly the same (the odds of losing more than one level every five rounds are less than the odds of not losing any). It's a lot easier for me to remember to do something every round than to do it every fifth round. Might have a modifier in number of contacts based on APP or CHA or PRE or whatever it ends up as. Even if it's just APP, pretty people often are more popular, all other things being equal. Darn it. ---- (*) ZZ [] (.) @ e K| o8- |> oK <>< )o 3 8 <| Run dry on pithy sayings, check later. Boris |><| +- (| >- .: K * =|= <- (O) ( ) (o) (|) X-  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA14469; Fri, 18 Jun 93 01:57:27 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA08945; Fri, 18 Jun 93 02:55:22 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Fri, 18 Jun 93 2:57:26 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Comments+Impressions Date: Fri, 18 Jun 93 16:54:57 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <1E9D26D733E@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Graeme here, replying to Paul replying to Myles I support the highest roll in a category as the simplest system as well. It produces some strange sounding results (my 5 critical beats you 9 special, but if I'd rolled a 6 you would have won), but I think it should function within the system pretty. > > >FATIGUE > > I used to belong to the Autofailure school but now belong to the > Straight Skill Modifier school. Luckily I'm an Illuminate so the > Autofailure Spirit of Reprisal can't get me. > No need to worry: I think I'm the one who first proposed the autofailure (no, I'm not losing my memory: I just don't know if anyone thought it up independently) and I prefer a simple modifier too. The autofailure mod was proposed in order to have some effect on people with 100%+ skill. I know think that 100%+ people seem to have few advantages remaining to them in the RQIV draft. The only problem is that if someone had 150% skill then they would be unaffected by fatigue until they suddenly collapsed. This is IMHO a problem with Loren's integer based fatigue rules: a rune lord with 150% attack and parry in her primary weapon and 60% in most other weapon skills is at fatigue level +6. She still has primary attack & parry at 90%, which is basically superb swordplay, but all other skills are totally trashed. I may have misunderstood Loren of course: did you propose a limiting integer, say con/2, before collapse? Also, did fatigue accrue automatically at the end of every rounds, or was the Con*X rule of the draft still in effect? On a related note: what are the advantages remaining to 100%+ skills in the 2.0 draft? The multiple attack/parry rules have been replaced with the new (markedly superior) rules. Someone mentioned that the RQII rule of subtracting skills over 100% from opposed skills is back, but I didn't notice it. The lesser value of skill over 100% as opposed to skill beneath 100% has always bothered me. In a fight between two opponents, one at 60% skills, one at 100%, the 100% will almost always win. Between 100% and 140%, the 140%er has an nice edge but nowhere near the same superiority, even though the difference is the same and it is much harder to go from 100%->140% in a skill than from 60%->100%. > On a serious note, people with 200% skills should be able to win against > ordinary mortals in their sleep. Their spinal reflexes should be programmed > for their skills, practically. Also, higher skill people learn to be more > efficient in their tasks and take longer to reach the point of being too > tired to do anything, the straight skill modifier reflects this. I agree on both points here. > > - Paul > > PS> Thanks Myles for the thumbs up on sorcery. Will have another draft > out around the end of the month. Looking forward to it; pity I'll be on holidays then! Graeme.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA11260; Fri, 18 Jun 93 17:12:33 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA05123; Fri, 18 Jun 93 18:12:28 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Fri, 18 Jun 93 18:12:32 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Damage Bonus Date: Fri, 18 Jun 93 18:12:33 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <1F91B9546D5@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Tom is right! (Three messages back). People have the damage bonus memorized. Use it for new spirit magic damage if you want a table, people know this one. Also don't fix what isn't broken. A different table that gives practically the same averages is an unnecessary fix. Changing the whole system to be like Pendragon (or GURPS) would be OK, but why bother tweaking? ________________________________________________________________ Paul is a God Learner, burn him! - _____________________________________________  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA12690; Fri, 18 Jun 93 17:57:37 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA06253; Fri, 18 Jun 93 18:57:32 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Fri, 18 Jun 93 18:57:34 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Sorcery, Pow, Training Date: Fri, 18 Jun 93 18:57:33 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <1F9DC4F1A3D@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Reply to gharris: >I don't think there should be any very stressful trial for >a sorceror to gain a Twin Already been eliminated. After all, the shaman thinks that the sorceror 'cheats' by not facing the Bad Man, rules should reflect this. > Also, I generally dislike the idea of some sort of >spiritual upkeep being necessary for a Twin. I think any sort of >vows or geasa kept by sorcerors should for the most part be >cultural, much like Catholic priests' vows of celibacy or some >orders of nuns' or monks' vows of silence or poverty or any of a >number of other things. 'Cultural' restrictions often have a sound economic reason behind them. Examples: Lenten meat restrictions: designed to keep you from eating your breeding animals during the leanest time of year. With greater food supplies, the Church dropped this to a symbolic 'Fish Friday' in Lent. Hindu meat restrictions: Economic analysis shows that meat production is inefficient use of farmland. When population gets high, vegetarianism is efficient. But oxen are needed for agriculture. hence vegetarianism + 'sacred cows'. Note further effieciency: Untouchables are a special caste, can't kill cattle but can eat meat should it become available. They also prepare bodies.... Japan: Similar to India. Medieval Church Holidays: Balanced production against needs of consumers. When demand increased, Protestant Reformation and the CounterReformation cut the number of holidays. Modern American Education: Extended college for many cuts competition in the job market, reduces unemployment. etc., etc. Thus I think that the Rokari restriction on sorcerors IN PARTICULAR are probably useful to their magic somehow. Note the drawbacks: celibacy breeds out magical talent, long periods of 'holy stuff' take time away from useful magic. Their society would get outcompeted by less restrictive societies if this stuff did not have a PRACTICAL function. Plus I like the model where Life Force gets channeled into magic, it seems to fit with many sources. Look at the Brithini. Read the description of Aranolit in the Genertela Book. Then come back with an explanation other than Life Force can be channelled into magic that I find convincing. >If one insists on having these be >magical vows, I would say have them be means of *increasing* the >power of the Twin rather than be necessary for attaining it. This is a real possibility. I may include this as an option in the playtest release, see what people say. I think that acts like engendering children ARE quite powerful magic on Glorantha, that's the default use, and that sorcerors have to draw from somewhere. More on this later. >{he prefers essentially current system} > One, backwards compatibility. Many have scoffed at this I don't scoff but think that the RQ3 Sorcery is really broken. I'd like to keep some backwards compatibility, for example in most of the spell descriptions. But sorcerors can maintain zillions of spells under RQ3, and ritualizing exponential duration won't change that (unless you go to something like the RQ 4 draft, in which case it drops to ONE spell) The sorceror's manipulation is limited by skills as well. Anyway, I have to go soon. Your suggestions have merit. I will continue to work on our system, you should organize your ideas and present them as an alternative. _ Paul Ps. >Something that >is generally true of Gloranthan magic is that it is powered by >POW and magic points. ??? I agree, hence my system where the total amount of magic that a sorceror can maintain at once is related to POW invested. I was acknowledging this relationship as a sort of law of nature that all systems would have to obey. Also why are vows unGloranthan for sorcerors? The culture writeups we DO have for Rokari, Mostali, and Brithini show very restricted people. >, I >think it is perfectly reasonable for these requirements *not* to >have any real game effect, that is, for them to be cultural ??? Earlier you said they should get a power boost for vows, confusion reigns. I may have to try to send a question about this up the line to Greg. My belief is that sorcerors aren't idiots, the restrictions probably have some practical reasons behind them. Well, maybe they are idiots, but cultures whose restrictions make practical sense will ouutcompete those with useless ones, hence successful cultures like the Rokari should have restrictions which are practical in some way. >Having sorcery be powered by subverted >carnal desires just doesn't fit. I think that POW is the SOURCE of those carnal desires. Basic Life Force. If you rechannel it into something else it will not be available for its 'normal' functions. Anyway, my default model is to say that societies USUALLY have restrictions of some kind on sorcerors, and my (God Learner) GUESS is that they are to help channel more life force into their magic. Of course the Rokari see these restrictions as moral in nature, the Kralorelans as maintaining harmony with Nature, etc. They don't believe in my anthropological model, but if I'm to write a system that covers East Isles and Brithos, it will have to wind up sounding anthropological/ economical. > In our world, what do priests get out of celibacy? Had a lot to do with property inheritance and benefices in the Middle Ages. Now it's more of an encumbrance, and it's practitioners are getting outcompeted. We're closing six churches here for lack of priests. >This is the change that sorcerors be required to >learn each different type of enchantment and summoning spell as a >separate skill Not my suggestion - I am against this. You are lumping in stuff from two different groups of people. Keeping the summons and enchants as is is a good idea - in fact I would support grouping other spells the same way and having skills for groups rather than individual spells. It's beyond my control... >so forcing them to learn different skills for Enchant >Magic Point Matrix, Enchant Spell Matrix, Enchant Iron, etc. >seems to be adding insult to injury Agree. Good POW comments. > I have never seen skill check frenzy very much, so I >question the need for limiting the number of skills rolls >available to the characters by GM whim. Agree. If it gets really out of hand GM can take steps. What is worth a check is GM option anyway, plonking rats for fun need not count. __________  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA23011; Sat, 19 Jun 93 03:41:57 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA13268; Sat, 19 Jun 93 04:41:45 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Sat, 19 Jun 93 4:41:56 EDT From: joe@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: COMMENTS (1/2) from David Hall Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1993 04:52:48 MEZ Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <203989B0826@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> I have to disagree to David's attitude to skills. A skill is something public domain, a thing to be discovered. Any skill can be learned by anyone, special cult skills are only those silly skills nobody else would even think of, such as Immanent Mastery's Charismatic Wisdom. Ok, Sense Chaos/Assassin is different, but this special perception device has to be awakened magically (by initiation or Geas) to work. Any other skill can be researched by virtually anyone. Yes, this applies to Martial Arts in Western or Theyalan society as well as Craft Iron among trolls. Wether any member of this society would do so, and what the reactions of other members would be, is a matter not relevant here. Craft Iron among trolls is about as probable as animal husbandry among Mostali, darksense scan among humans or butchery among Aldryami, i.e. directly contrary to innate believes or biology, but I really don't see that Drive Vehicle is a cult secret that requires initiation to Lokarnos or Mastakos, especially not if you live in a Western society where sorcery rules. Whom do the Loskalmi farmers turn to when they want to learn to drive their ox-carts to Sog City? Or Ralian human Argan Argar worshippers? I do agree that high level training is more readily available at temples specialising in a certain skill, but even on Glorantha one person cantry to duplicate another's achievements, and will finally come to a similar skill. Lores tend to teach truths. If a truth can be perceived, it will be sooner or later. The Aristotelians tried to keep the existence of the pentagon-dodecahedron secret, as did the Egyptian priests with the height of the pyramids. Both to no avail, because the secret they kept was an universal truth. The only exception to this are skills relying on some magical effect. I am not animistic, so tell me what is the magic about driving an ox-cart, or pulling a plow (very much the same skill, in my opinion)? The beginner may not do it on a straight line, but he will somehow manage, sooner or later. So ther is no reason at all to make it cult special skill in the sense that only the cults mentioned can teach or even learn it, only in the sense that this cult is ver likely to be able to provide highly skilled individuals in this skill who might act as a teacher. Acting might be a favorite pastime of Yelmic nobility in Dara Happa, without them being more than lay members (i.e. occasional worshippers, probably by acting) in Donandar's cult. The finer arts of wrestling I'd expect to be taught by a lean nomad rather than by some city-dwelling Kralori soldier, and they are what I understand as Martial Arts: throws, blocks, holds, maybe add in bear hug as one method of directly causing damage. Only non-universal truths like jurisdictional laws or cult history are extremely hard to be learned by mere observation, but even social habits can be explored by observation combined with trial and error. Provided errors don't prove fatal, but even then the wise may be able to learn from others' mistakes. Sorcery: (views expressed here are my players' views, as far as I can second or at least understand them) My players complain about sorcerers being no match for equally experienced spirit magic users. The really interesting thing about sorcery is to be able to manipulate duration and range, and these are restricted to apprentices in RQ3. When I first encountered RQ sorcery and didn't read it in detail, I got the impression that this was a system that allowed flexible magic spells, to be adapted to the situation on hand by the magician. This proved to be wrong in the RQ3 rules. The only spells that found creative application in our games were Form/Set substance, which did many wonderful things the designers probably never dreamt of. (RQ is the only game I know whrere collecting dimond dust can be used to produce an if not flawless, then at least giant single gem, and this is the only reason I don't discard the "gem price by carat" table. The right table to apply would be the sorcery range or duration table, being exponential.) We always felt that sorcery ought to be a superior, almost scientfic approach to magic, and used by somebody not a Freshman ought to be able to produce better effects. Instead we get Damage Boost bereft of to hit modifiers, Damage resistance which is virtually useless against Uz or strong opponents with heavy weapons, a 8 point neutralize magic that is less likely to dispel a three point spell than a 3 point spirit spell Dispel Magic, and harder to cast, etc. Shapechange species to species could have been a useful spell if applyble on friendly targets, e.g. to aquire some innate ability like better speed or longer reach, or simply not being recognized. As it is in RQ3, it's a pretty useless and hopelessly overrated spell. Use of Venom and Tap was discouraged in my campaign (and would likely have led to burning at the stake, or worse fates). The only reason to play a sorcerer was to become an apprentice and be able to manipulate range and duration, and this single advantage is endangered now. For those who have read Raymond Feist's Riftwar Saga, we always figured that sorcery ought to resemble the magic of the greater path, while spirit magic corresponded to that of the lesser path. All right, Midkemia is not Glorantha, but there are some concepts both worlds hold in common, as well as some places (Carse, Tulan...). And we are less than happy with restricitng RQ to Glorantha. Glorantha is a fine example for a campaign world, and good fiction, but not necessarily the place to run every campaign ever playeed with RQ. The decision has been made, however, to cover all the peculiarities of Glorantha in the rules. RQ ought to function when played in a different setting, e.g Vikings or other alternate earth, or when played before another fantastic background. It has to function in Glorantha, too. Maybe first of all, but we rather see that as princeps inter pares. Spirit world: Why does David want to make the Malkionists invisible? Are they and the Brithini and Vadeli immune to spirits? That would make them grosser than RQ3-sorcerers without any manipulation limit and access to any amount of magic points. When the shaman says that the Monotheists have no soul, they mean as soon as those wretches die, their souls wither and fade away, instead of roaming the spirit plane. As long as they live, their soul lives within their bodies, and can still be saved from their errant ways. No reason at all to give them special advantages. Spirit combat skill: What is POW? Is it Willpower? Is it Soul strength? Magic Force? Luck? Harmony with nature? With the spirit world? I see little reason to make a wrestlig of wills a colourless rolling of POW vs. POW when swordfights aren't resolved in DEX v. DEX or STR vs. STE. What I miss is a description of the actual actions the characters take. Spirit combat skill ought to be based on POW, too, maye as complementary skill/characteristic. POW alone is dull, though. Price lists: Good comments there! -- -- Joerg Baumgartner joe@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA26312; Sat, 19 Jun 93 08:50:45 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA15921; Sat, 19 Jun 93 09:50:38 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Sat, 19 Jun 93 9:50:44 EDT From: Tom Zunder To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Damage Bonus Date: Sat, 19 Jun 93 14:25 GMT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <208BF041187@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Don't change the damage bonus table. It works, I don't care about minimaxers, they are having fun, but they're wasting time they could spend role-playing or killing things. The obsession with absolute game balance and/or game revision can just get in the way with playing the game. {{Sorry, but most of us like killing things occassionally, don't we?}} The big changes are what are important, not messing with little bits. When you roll up a Humakti do you peruse every minor advantage and disadvantage, every percentage edge here and there or do you think about what he's like, who he's killed and what he's gonna be like? RuneQuest is already one of the most complex rpgs out there, let's not turn it into C&S 2 when people are buying two dice, two stats and a crummy combat system becasue the role-playing is better. {{ C&S 2, that could be an interesting (yawn) playtest..}} -------------------------------------------------------------------- Orlanth Rex! tzunder@cix.compulink.co.uk --------------------------------------------------------------------  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA14501; Fri, 18 Jun 93 19:24:30 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA07822; Fri, 18 Jun 93 20:24:21 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Fri, 18 Jun 93 20:24:28 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Damage Bonus Date: Sat, 19 Jun 93 10:24:05 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <1FB4EEC3DC4@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Graeme here about Damage Bonus. The current table isn't broken? I think it is one of the most broken parts of RQIII, there's no way of working out the bonus without consulting the table. Going from no bonus to +1d4, from +1d6 to +2d6 etc produced gross minimaxing. I welcomed the RQIV draft table as being a simplification, and a much smoother progression. Though I argued against a straight integer bounus for damage as reducing the effectiveness of larger characters, I welcome it as an added simplification. I can't accept the arguement that it is better to keep it the same for the sake of the old RQ players who have it memorized. One of its problems is that you have to memorize it, you can't work it out. I understand it is an aim of RQIV to attract new people as well as please the old players. Keeping the damage bonus dinosaur from RQIII won't help do this IMHO. Graeme.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA15069; Fri, 18 Jun 93 19:54:21 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA08165; Fri, 18 Jun 93 20:53:54 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Fri, 18 Jun 93 20:53:56 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: FATIGUE Date: Sat, 19 Jun 93 10:53:22 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <1FBCC213176@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Graeme responding... > > First Graeme complains that the fatigue rules that just subtract 20xN% > from physical skills aren't tough enough on weapons masters with skills > over 100%, and then later in the post complains that the difference > between 140% and 100% skill isn't as important as the difference between > 100% and 60%, despite the extreme difficulty of attaining skills over > 100%. > > Which side of the fence are you on? > Actually, what I was trying to say in the first part was what boris has said better: every other skill is as trashed as that of the novice. You now have a rune lord that can do one act superbly, but not anything else. Is this the way it works in reality? (An actual question: I don't fight, so I don't know) > Personally I think that the fatigue advantage would be an excellent way > to differentiate between weapons masters and mere mortals. Otherwise the > only difference is an improved special and critical chance. > Personally I would prefer this to be somewhere in the skill resolution system because a) Some GM's prefer to ignore fatigue and b) Skills that don't cause fatigue aren't helped by this system. Better handling of 100%+ skills is needed in general, not just in the combat system. > > I may have misunderstood Loren of > > course: did you propose a limiting integer, say con/2, before > > collapse? Also, did fatigue accrue automatically at the end of every > > rounds, or was the Con*X rule of the draft still in effect? > > I'd leave the CONx5 rule in, and didn't want a limiting integer. I would > prefer the rules to give an advantage to people with high skill levels, > an advantage that the current rules don't offer. I'd want to playtest But people will eventually collapse from fatigue no matter how skilled they are, won't they? > Loren Miller internet: MILLERL@wharton.upenn.edu Graeme.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA17636; Fri, 18 Jun 93 21:50:08 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA09522; Fri, 18 Jun 93 22:49:54 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Fri, 18 Jun 93 22:49:57 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Damage Bonus and Natural Armour Date: Sat, 19 Jun 93 12:49:36 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <1FDBBE71E85@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Graeme here, wasting time when he should be preparing for his mid-term review! Burton: I'm not a real fan of the layered armour rules you give. One of the reasons I suggested natural armour for big people is to give them an advantage, since the current are prejudiced against large combatants IMHO. I preferred SIZ+STR since I see muscle bulk and hardness as being more important than overall health. In your rules, the advantage dissappears when people are wearing heavy armour (ie in most battles). Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing HP based purely on SIZ, with con as just the stat used to determine recovery and functioning while damaged; I'm not advocating this as a change, I just think it's a better mechanic. One thing that has struck me about the straight damage bonus idea: can very small creatures hurt each other at all? I think they have a -3 to damage now, which make most 1d3 and 1d4 attacks pretty futile. An idea that just rose to the surface of my mind (the cesspool analogy seems apt) is to take Siz + Str 1-5 as the base like so Siz + Str Damage Bonus Armour Bonus OJ'sArmour = 0.5* Damage 1-5 0 0 0 6-10 +1 +1 +1 11-15 +2 +2 +1 16-20 +3 +3 +2 21-25 +4 +4 +2 26-30 +5 +5 +3 31-35 +6 +6 +3 etc. In this system people in the same Siz + Str bracket would do the same damage to one another ie 1d3 punch, 1d6 kick etc. Of course smaller people have less hit points, so the end result is that fight between larger combatants take longer. There are a fair few problem with the system above: a typical Siz 32 Str 32 horse has +12 damage and armour, which is a +8 advantage over an ordinary person: I don't think the typical horse has the equivalent of plate armour built in. OJ's suggestion of half damage bonus equals natural armour should work here though. This is probably too much of a change, but it seems more elegant than the current system. Thoughts? Comments?  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA21019; Sat, 19 Jun 93 01:09:30 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA11823; Sat, 19 Jun 93 02:09:20 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Sat, 19 Jun 93 2:09:22 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Damage Bonus and Natural Armour - Addendum Date: Sat, 19 Jun 93 16:08:53 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <2010ECC3F21@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Well, I'm about to eat my words. Burton suggested that we use Str + Con for armour. This might have an advantage: > > Siz + Str Damage Bonus Armour Bonus OJ'sArmour = 0.5* Damage > 1-5 0 0 0 > 6-10 +1 +1 +1 > 11-15 +2 +2 +1 > 16-20 +3 +3 +2 > 21-25 +4 +4 +2 > 26-30 +5 +5 +3 > 31-35 +6 +6 +3 > > etc. > If we use Str + Con then the huge armour for large animals (ie horses, the only large animal whose stats I have memorized), isn't as bad, since most large animals still have 3d6 con. The Str 32, Con 11, Siz 32 horse would have Damage Bonus +12, Armour Bonus +8 (Remember that the average fit male, Str=Con=Siz+13, has +5 damage and armour bonus). This compares to the current situation where the same man has +1d4 and no armour and the same horse has +3d6 and 2 points of armour. Graeme.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA03756; Sat, 19 Jun 93 16:39:22 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA22160; Sat, 19 Jun 93 17:39:07 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Sat, 19 Jun 93 17:39:20 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: FATIGUE Date: Sat, 19 Jun 93 17:37:44 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <2108E071BBD@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> >You >now have a rune lord that can do one act superbly, but not anything else. >Is this the way it works in reality? No. The expert spends less energy, he is just not as tired. Hmm. Someone should work out a system. One of the main things you learn is minimal blocking. This saves a lot of energy as you get better. Also you launch fewer pointless attacks as you improve.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA21374; Sat, 19 Jun 93 01:39:10 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA12189; Sat, 19 Jun 93 02:39:05 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Sat, 19 Jun 93 2:39:08 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Damage Bonus and Natural Armour - Addendum Date: Sat, 19 Jun 93 16:38:42 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <2018D700427@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Graeme here correcting the addendum: actually Burton suggested Siz +Con, and that was what I meant in the addendum. For a large animal with 3d6 con, the natural armour will approach 0.5*siz as siz goes to infinity. Graeme.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA07061; Sat, 19 Jun 93 22:36:20 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA26039; Sat, 19 Jun 93 23:36:13 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Sat, 19 Jun 93 23:36:17 EDT From: "Loren J. Miller" To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: FATIGUE Date: 19 Jun 1993 23:38:22 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <21681D45157@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Okay, every time you miss a parry or attack the ref rolls a d10 and if a 1 comes up you make a CONxN roll or gain a level of fatigue. Fatigue adds 1SR to all actions and subtracts -10% from physical skills for every level. Is this good enough for masters and tough enough on neophytes? -- Loren  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA15776; Sun, 20 Jun 93 12:44:39 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA04077; Sun, 20 Jun 93 13:43:34 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Sun, 20 Jun 93 13:44:37 EDT From: joe@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: FATIGUE Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1993 16:36:00 MEZ Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <224A1657E7D@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Loren proposed: >Okay, every time you miss a parry or attack the ref rolls a d10 and if >a 1 comes up you make a CONxN roll or gain a level of fatigue. Fatigue >adds 1SR to all actions and subtracts -10% from physical skills for every >level. >Is this good enough for masters and tough enough on neophytes? Elegant, and deadly, too! I like it a lot. Combat scene: Joe rushes full of confidence forward and lunges out wih his axe - and misses. With his confidence goes his spirit, he attacks/parries at -10. As soon as opportunity comes, he sneaks out of combat (maneuver skill -10, or DEX*4 instead *5) and tries to regain confidence, and as a byproduct, wind. The battle fares well, or bad, anyway Joe found new heart for it and rushes in again after two or three rounds "catching breath". This interpretation hardly contains fatigue any more, but covers morale as well. And berserks don't feel any fatigue or doubt, do they? One might want to expand it to other stressed skill rolls as well, e.g. casting a spell, opening a lock when the pursuit is hot, etc. This also takes care of the why with mutiple attempts on picking a lock. And gives a reason why the less skilled character shoves the experienced one aside and has one try at it - in a stress situation, NB. Without stress the result for open locks is either a fumble, a reroll, or a success (special and crits save time), and the specialist is the one going for it if he feels it a challenge. If not, he simply might not bother such trivia, and let the freshman have a try before. Throwing together Fatigue and Ars-Magica Confidence might even give some slight confidence bonus, such as +5% to the next roll, or the possibility regain of a magic point out of triumph (very much like the mechanics and the reasoning with the RQ3 POW gain roll), not counting for natural regeneration. Who hasn't felt the elation of a task excellently done? E.g. after a special or critical success. -- -- Joerg Baumgartner joe@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA05920; Sat, 19 Jun 93 20:05:59 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA24141; Sat, 19 Jun 93 21:05:43 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Sat, 19 Jun 93 21:05:50 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: FATIGUE Date: Sun, 20 Jun 93 11:05:21 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <213FFCB411F@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> > >Is this the way it works in reality? > > No. The expert spends less energy, he is just not as tired. Hmm. Someone > should work out a system. Actually I don't think the subject of fatigue wil be very important in fights between experts (90%+ skill) and novices (40% skill). 5 melee rounds tops, I'd say. > > One of the main things you learn is minimal blocking. This saves a lot > of energy as you get better. Also you launch fewer pointless attacks as > you improve. > Perhaps some method of "pushing" could be used: you could add (say) 20% to your skills for one round at the cost of making an extra fatigue roll at the end. The novice would choose to do this to get an extra round or two or survival, but it is a downward spiral: when he fails the fatigue roll, the novice has to "push" again to survive, requiring another fatigue roll... Graeme.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA17992; Sun, 20 Jun 93 15:34:25 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA06241; Sun, 20 Jun 93 16:33:56 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Sun, 20 Jun 93 16:34:02 EDT From: Amazing Larry To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Fatigue Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1993 15:34:18 -0500 (CDT) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <227792C74EC@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> >Okay, every time you miss a parry or attack the ref rolls a d10 and if >a 1 comes up you make a CONxN roll or gain a level of fatigue. Fatigue >adds 1SR to all actions and subtracts -10% from physical skills for every >level. Good! It might be simpler: Every miss roll that ends in 0 calls for a CONxN roll. Fatigue adds 1 SR to all actions and subtracts -10% from physical skills for every level. And fumbles are automatic fatigue loss?  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA27945; Mon, 21 Jun 93 05:02:58 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA15239; Mon, 21 Jun 93 06:01:45 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 21 Jun 93 6:02:56 EDT From: Mystic Musk Ox To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: RE: SKILL CONTESTS + REDEFINE CRITICALS? Date: Mon, 21 Jun 93 10:59 BST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <234F0026332@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> from john_medway@zycor.lgc.com: >What if Criticals were redefined to be any die roll ending in "0",and Specials, >any die roll ending in "8" or "9"? (Yes I know this increases the chance of >criticals, but bear with me.) Then we would have Critical Success = successful >roll ending in "0", and critical failure = failed roll ending in "0". We'd have >Special Success and Failure with similar simple, non-computational methods. What could be done about skills over 100%? The critical/special chance will level out. I do like this as an idea though, much easier than looking at a table all the time. You might need to spread the numbers out though, else someone at 17% skill is getting half as many specials/criticals as someone at 20%. >>> Incidentally, has anyone considered using this system for combat rolls? >>> It seems to me that combat is the only case where this is not proposed to >>> be used. Perhaps even the same mechanics as Dodge i.e. a Critical Attack vs >>> a Special Parry reduces the hit to a normal? Or some other tweak? >It would be a heinous mess, unless the computation of what is & what is not a >Critical/Special result was simplified. If it was simplified, as above, then it >might bee a very good idea. Well, I don't think it would be too bad, after all you only need to know your level of success, but maybe it would be easier using the "last digit on roll" method.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA12342; Mon, 21 Jun 93 13:14:38 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01147; Mon, 21 Jun 93 14:14:21 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 21 Jun 93 14:14:30 EDT From: joe@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: SKILL CONTESTS + REDEFINE CRITICALS? Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1993 13:19:36 MEZ Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <23D26385CF1@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Call me conservative, but I strongly dislike the "easy" crit system. For several reasons: 1. RuneQuest-die roll philosophy: The lower the better. This has worked very well from the beginning. Never change a winning team! 2. Uneasiness with Pendragon-style crit rolls: I still feel uncomfortable if my chance of success is 80%, and then to tell that a roll of 80 on d100 is a crit, and not barely passed. 3. If we want to soften up binary success/failure thinking, we need some mechanics like "passed/missed by X" where X might be some divisor for skil-percents, or a quite fixed amount. >from john_medway@zycor.lgc.com: >>What if Criticals were redefined to be any die roll ending in "0",and Specials, >>any die roll ending in "8" or "9"? (Yes I know this increases the chance of >>criticals, but bear with me.) Then we would have Critical Success = successful >>roll ending in "0", and critical failure = failed roll ending in "0". We'd have >>Special Success and Failure with similar simple, non-computational methods. >What could be done about skills over 100%? The critical/special chance will >level out. I do like this as an idea though, much easier than looking at a >table all the time. You might need to spread the numbers out though, >else someone at 17% skill is getting half as many specials/criticals >as someone at 20%. Another mathematical problem we can easily avoid by sticking to the old system. Opposed skill resolving with the last digit method: >Well, I don't think it would be too bad, after all you only need to know >your level of success, but maybe it would be easier using the "last digit >on roll" method. One still gets lots of results with the same level of success, and has t take care of those first hand. They tend to make up the majority of events, in my experience (average skills ranging 50 to 80%), and the standard system ought to be cut for this case, not for special cases. I still vote for the level of success solution whe applicable. If combat is to be resolved in one opposed roll for attack and parry per combat round, we lose what is special about RuneQuest combat system - a quite high degree of detail. The essential system of attack-parry/dodge-hit location-damage rolls does work, at least as well as any other system I've played (quite a lot). What I would welcome would be optional variations of hit location determination - not necessarily an "aimed blow only" system, but a more generalized aiming area, e.g. by rolling d10 plus some modifier on the d20 table. I always found it annoying that 40% of all hits in fistycuffs went to the legs. Honestly, even if one fights dirty and concentrates on hitting between the legs, one doesn't hit the knees this often! I also liked the aimed blow system with a certain band-wide for the hit location roll at the cost of some skill and some speed (strike ranks, or their equivalent) better than the RQ3 "hits at SR 10, chance to hit halved" rule. NB, all of these are meant to be optional rules. With this amount of optional rules, one ought to add a binary data sheet where one can mark which optional rules are valid, and which not. -- -- Joerg Baumgartner joe@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA00193; Mon, 21 Jun 93 08:14:20 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA18319; Mon, 21 Jun 93 09:13:59 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 21 Jun 93 9:14:06 EDT From: burt@ptltd.com (Burton Choinski) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: COMMENTS, DAMAGE Date: Mon, 21 Jun 93 09:10:19 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <238249E794A@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Graeme notes about the damage bonus: ------------------------------------------------------------ | The current table isn't broken? I think it is one of the most broken | parts of RQIII, there's no way of working out the bonus without | consulting the table. Going from no bonus to +1d4, from +1d6 to +2d6 | etc produced gross minimaxing. | | I welcomed the RQIV draft table as being a simplification, and a | much smoother progression. Though I argued against a straight integer | bounus for damage as reducing the effectiveness of larger characters, | I welcome it as an added simplification. Personally, I would prefer if it were simplified to use d6 and d3 for values, or converted to straight adds. | Burton: I'm not a real fan of the layered armour rules you give. One | of the reasons I suggested natural armour for big people is to give | them an advantage, since the current are prejudiced against large | combatants IMHO. I preferred SIZ+STR since I see muscle bulk and | hardness as being more important than overall health. In your rules, | the advantage dissappears when people are wearing heavy armour (ie in | most battles). Well, is the armoring system supposed to represent a linear or exponential protection? If it is linear, then sure, you would just add protections for a total armor. If exponetial, then the Value of leather under plate (1 or 2 under 8) is negligable. Looking at the draft rules again, it says that "lesser armor is halved before adding", which makes me think it is somewhat exponential. But, to be fair, and mulling it over, I think it should be exapanded just a bit (this post modified my suggestion: High >= Low > High/2 = add Low/2 (round nearest) High/2 >= Low > 0 = add Low/4 (round nearest) Thus, A guy adding heavy leather to his light chain (2 to 6) adds 2/4, rounded to 1. This is just an expansion of the existing draft rules to cover the low armor. | Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing HP based purely on SIZ, with con | as just the stat used to determine recovery and functioning while | damaged; I'm not advocating this as a change, I just think it's a | better mechanic. Well, it is as Size increases. | One thing that has struck me about the straight damage bonus idea: | can very small creatures hurt each other at all? I think they have | a -3 to damage now, which make most 1d3 and 1d4 attacks pretty futile. | An idea that just rose to the surface of my mind (the cesspool | analogy seems apt) is to take Siz + Str 1-5 as the base like so Table trimmed...you've all seen it :) Well, it has an advantage for those smaller creatures. But I have problems with "natural armor" anyways. Certain animals have "Natural armor" in the way of having armored scales or very thick hides. I would classify the armor that big people have as more a "Toughness". Now Toughness is great for fending off non-lethal blows (punch, kick, etc), but I don't know how realisitically it can help against a bladed weapon. If "Toughness" is allowed, I think the following guidelines should be used: Crush Attacks: Full value Slash Attacks: Half value Impale Attacks: Not counted Now, one can say that since this is toughness and not another layer of armor, you may add the value directly instead of calculating like above. The result? Well, in fist fights it counts as you would expect it. Big guys take a lot of punishment and don't seem to feel it. You cannot punch out horses. But add a blade to the mix and things even out. Remember, it only takes one Shiv between the ribs to ruin your day, be you big or small. Since large people have lots of HP, this "loss of armor" against blades seems realistic. | Well, I'm about to eat my words. Burton suggested that we use | Str + Con for armour. This might have an advantage: As you mentioned in a later message, I stated that CON+SIZ be used. But in thinking over the idea of Toughness, a factor of CON (health) and STR (How tight you can bunch up your muscles) seems better. SIZ is a factor in seeing how much you can take, but this seems a better way of determining resistance to losing it. Way back when, someone mentioned... | Incidentally, has anyone considered using this system for combat rolls? | It seems to me that combat is the only case where this is not proposed to | be used. Perhaps even the same mechanics as Dodge i.e. a Critical Attack vs | a Special Parry reduces the hit to a normal? Or some other tweak? This is how we handle it. Parry is handled the same way as Dodge in this case, but every successful parry (i.e. reducing a successful attack to "miss" due to a successful parry) can still result in damage to the item doing the parrying. -- Burton  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA13821; Mon, 21 Jun 93 13:51:45 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA03020; Mon, 21 Jun 93 14:51:37 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 21 Jun 93 14:51:40 EDT From: burt@ptltd.com (Burton Choinski) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: COMMENTS, skill rolls Date: Mon, 21 Jun 93 14:48:01 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <23DC52948C9@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Joerg Baumgartner comments on rolls. ------------------------------------------------------------ | Opposed skill resolving with the last digit method: | >Well, I don't think it would be too bad, after all you only need to know | >your level of success, but maybe it would be easier using the "last digit | >on roll" method. | | One still gets lots of results with the same level of success, and has | to take care of those first hand. They tend to make up the majority of | events, in my experience (average skills ranging 50 to 80%), and the | standard system ought to be cut for this case, not for special cases. | I still vote for the level of success solution whe applicable. I tried the "level of success/hi-roll if same" system in my last session. It worked pretty good for the non-combat stuff (we did not try it in combat, but we do handle parries in the same way as dodges). If you used this for combat it would get pretty bloody. | What I would welcome would be optional variations of hit location | determination - not necessarily an "aimed blow only" system, but a more | generalized aiming area, e.g. by rolling d10 plus some modifier on the d20 | table. I always found it annoying that 40% of all hits in fistycuffs went | to the legs. Honestly, even if one fights dirty and concentrates on hitting | between the legs, one doesn't hit the knees this often! We do not use the Melee table at all now...just the Missile table for melee and missiles. Using the Melee table resulted in too many lopped limbs as far as we were concerned. This ain't "Conan in Glorantha" :) In general we use 1d10+10 for high hits (punches, attacks from mounted characters to unmounted characters and 1d10 for low hits (ground people attacking riders, kicking). It seems to wok well enough. -- Burton  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA18195; Mon, 21 Jun 93 15:34:33 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA07264; Mon, 21 Jun 93 16:34:23 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 21 Jun 93 16:34:27 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: STATS: establishing scales Date: Mon, 21 Jun 93 16:34:23 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <23F7B4701EE@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Response to Loren: We always thought stats were logarithmic (i.e., the stat is the log of what it is measuring, same thing you mean by exponential), for several reasons. I gave a bunch of these before and will not reiterate but am just writing in to support Loren. We also use +8 = x2, more or less. Some things seem different from this. Armor, for example, seems more steeply graded, at least +4 = x2. But the basic principle holds. We use this scale for spells like Gift POW; note how gross this is if you use linear scale. I think we should keep the resistance table as it was in RQ 2 and 3 and be clear on what stats mean. Someone needs to think about what this means for POW and magic points as well. A Yelm temple spirit with 32 POW should be able to throw a LOT of Ignites if POW is a logarithmic measure of magical strength. Perhaps the scale should be redone so that +10 is x2; people with dB meters on their stereo are familiar with this scaling already. Someone should check human variations. [Loren suggests this also, just got to the end of his post] Or the exact scaling could vary with stats; I don't think human reflex speed varies as much as strength or size (need to check here). Of course DEX also includes coordination, which varies a LOT. Rescaling might also change numbers that are familiar. Tricky here. More on this later if anyone is not convinced. Hurriedly, - Paul P.S> I think I sent in a post a while back on human perceptions being logarithmic, hence logarithmic stats are a good idea.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA19074; Mon, 21 Jun 93 15:54:16 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA07982; Mon, 21 Jun 93 16:54:07 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 21 Jun 93 16:54:12 EDT From: curtiss@netcom.com (Curtis Shenton) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: STATS: establishing scales Date: Mon, 21 Jun 93 13:54:14 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <23FCEFF3D47@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> > > There has been some talk about the scales of characteristics in > RuneQuest. While this doesn't matter much for lots of purposes, when > it does matter it can get pretty darn important. And it matters now, > while we're arguing about Armor rules, Hit Points, etc. I agree this needs to be decided on. And I think it's even more important that Loren suggests. Depending on what the scale is supposed to be it will also change the way skill bonuses are determained for insatnce. > > My opinion on characteristic scales in RQ is that they are > exponential. Every +8 in stat is x2 in ability. This is the scale > suggested by the Size table. Since Strength presumably uses the same > units as Size, it should also be exponential. Since Constitution is > mixed up with Siz and Str in so many formulae, it must also be > exponential. The resistance table suggests that all other stats are > also exponential. So I'm pretty sure that the scales are already > exponential. I've had this argument with Loren before. And while I actualy agree with Loren that the stats should be exponential I don't think they are now. I agree SIZ is screwy. But if the stats were exponential then going from dex 16 to 24 should give you 2x as big a bonus to your skills as going from 8 to 16, and I don't think that's the way it works. Also damage bonuses should increase exponentailly too and they don't. Also look at something like FREE INT. If INT was exponentail then 18 INT should be 2x as good as 10 INT right? But INT 18 can only hold 18 spells rather than 20. I have other examples too I could post if you'd like. So I don't think the current system is exponential. And while I think it should be, and SIZ should ve fixed one way or the other, this needs to be debated. It will be a pretty big change. > > The problem is that this is never stated explicitly in the rules, and > we have people going around with different assumptions. They think > that someone with a score of 100 in an attribute is 10x as good as > someone with 10, while I'd say they were 2^11.25 as good. I'm curious to see what other people think about this. I've never met anyone who agrees with Loren but it might just be I'm in somesort of RQ ghetto. :) > > > whoah, > +++++++++++++++++++++++23 > Loren Miller internet: MILLERL@wharton.upenn.edu > "Science" does not remove the terror of the gods. > -- Curtis Shenton curtiss@netcom.com internet & 4@3091 WWIVnet "At the GM's option, strategic nuclear weapons may be considered 'magical'"-From the CyberCthulhu rules in Interface  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA17072; Mon, 21 Jun 93 15:08:37 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA06088; Mon, 21 Jun 93 16:08:19 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 21 Jun 93 16:08:24 EDT From: "Loren J. Miller" To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: STATS: establishing scales Date: 21 Jun 1993 16:10:41 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <23F0CDB4E2C@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> There has been some talk about the scales of characteristics in RuneQuest. While this doesn't matter much for lots of purposes, when it does matter it can get pretty darn important. And it matters now, while we're arguing about Armor rules, Hit Points, etc. My opinion on characteristic scales in RQ is that they are exponential. Every +8 in stat is x2 in ability. This is the scale suggested by the Size table. Since Strength presumably uses the same units as Size, it should also be exponential. Since Constitution is mixed up with Siz and Str in so many formulae, it must also be exponential. The resistance table suggests that all other stats are also exponential. So I'm pretty sure that the scales are already exponential. The problem is that this is never stated explicitly in the rules, and we have people going around with different assumptions. They think that someone with a score of 100 in an attribute is 10x as good as someone with 10, while I'd say they were 2^11.25 as good. Can this be stated explicitly in RQ4 so that we all know that we mean the same thing by characteristic scores? It would also be useful to be able to use real-world measurements if they were needed. Finally, could we retouch it so that every +10 is 2x as good so we don't have to divide by 8 to compute these exponents? We could touch up the damage bonus table at the same time, actually, to remove the ugly math from it. This was already done with skill bonuses in RQ3, how come they didn't fix up *all* the nasty numbers? whoah, +++++++++++++++++++++++23 Loren Miller internet: MILLERL@wharton.upenn.edu "Science" does not remove the terror of the gods.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA26151; Mon, 21 Jun 93 18:51:41 -0500 Return-Path: <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA13352; Mon, 21 Jun 93 19:51:21 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 21 Jun 93 19:51:39 EDT From: Nick Brooke <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Brief Qs Date: 21 Jun 93 17:12:20 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <242C46D110B@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Three possibly controversial things that are bugging me: i) What are the terms of reference for RQ4? What do Ken and Avalon Hill want to see at the end of the day? While the Gang of "X" must know this, we are probably wasting a lot of time arguing about non-issues here -- things that will not be countenanced by the project proposal, however "neat" or "clean" they might appear. So it would save everybody's time and effort if we had this out in the open. Any illuminations, Oliver? ii) "Mathematical accuracy" -- I'm against it. I like the current three-point bands in the Hit Points Per Location chart, 'cos they make character creation and off-the-cuff combats a lot quicker and easier. I dislike the overly-literal RQ3 "Skill Results Table" chances for Special Success 'cos they don't make intuitive sense (I'd play more simply: 01-05% = impale on a 01; 26-30% = impale on an 01-06; etc.). I don't see why the huge and fiddly tables have to be introduced: they don't make anything measurably better or easier, IMHO. iii) Fatigue -- who cares? Honestly, guys, some of the systems I've seen would fatigue players and gamemasters more than combatants! This is a comparatively unimportant part of the rules, surely not worth the amount of attention being lavished on it. As my usual cop-out, I'd say "leave it to GM fiat": give us an idea of what being fatigued can do to a character's skills etc., then trust us to implement those results reasonably. Say, you can fight for CON rounds (perhaps subtracting one from CON for every STR points of ENC carried) before starting to tire. Or something like that. *Not* a regular book-keeping check at the end of every round, or the new rules will be ignored like the old ones were. Yours minimally, Nick  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA20328; Mon, 21 Jun 93 16:22:20 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA09162; Mon, 21 Jun 93 17:22:12 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 21 Jun 93 17:22:15 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: STATS: establishing scales Date: Mon, 21 Jun 93 17:22:23 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <240480E4419@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Reply to Curtiss: >But if the stats were exponential then going from >dex 16 to 24 should give you 2x as big a bonus to your skills as going >from 8 to 16, and I don't think that's the way it works Uhh... not necessarily. Skill bonuses going linearly with logarithmically scaled characteristics seems to me to be an instantiation of the law of diminishing returns. I am more than four times as strong as some SCA fighters and while this gives me an advantage it doesn't guarantee a win. I would say that the boost from strength bonus that I have over someone who can bench press 120 lbs. is about the same as she would have over some who bench presses 60, not twice as much. Same strength ratio gives same boost to success probability for each factor of two. I bet it works the same for speed edges too, but this is harder to measure objectively. Here I'm talking about probability of landing a successful hit, not damage; I don't use my full damage bonus anyway. Think of it like this: if I tell you that we have two equal fighters and one of them is to be speeded up by 5%, that should give the faster one a certain higher probability of successful attacks and blocks against the other one. But it wouldn't necessarily matter if they were both fast or both slow to start with, the probabilities should shift equally with the same PERCENTAGE (i.e. constant factor or constant addend to to logarithmic DEX) difference in speeds, no? - Paul PS> You are right on in other areas, however; many current rules assume linear stats. People get confused easily here because a small portion of an exponential curve will look linear. Thus a rule may make sense in one part of the regime but fail when applied to others, e.g. magic points and Power. The resistance table seems to imply POW as a logarithmic measure of magical strength, i.e., if A is twice as strong as B she should have the same chance of beating him regardless of whether they are both high POW or low POW. But if you count the number of Ignite spells that A and B can cast then it seems like POW is linear. I'll think about this later, too much other stuff to do.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA00410; Mon, 21 Jun 93 21:34:06 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA16544; Mon, 21 Jun 93 22:33:48 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 21 Jun 93 22:34:01 EDT From: JOVANOVIC@CUCCFA.CCC.COLUMBIA.EDU To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: FEEDBACK Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1993 22:35:30 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <24579111145@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Nick, the major limitation we're working under is to try to preserve as much compatibility with published RQIII stats as possible. Even this has some leeway, however - there are sections of the RQIII rules that we consider broken, or so controversial that they will have to be rewritten - fatigue and sorcery are both examples of this. Rules such as training, research, learning spells, combat, etc. have more freedom to change, as they will not effect published stats. Another major limitation is that changes or any rules dealing with Glorantha (magic, culture, the world), have to meet with Greg Stafford's approval. Otherwise, we're trying to maintain the level of sophistication that RQ is known for, but hopefully streamline and simplify the rules as much as possible, within these boundaries. These are rough drafts, and we fully realize that they will need smoothing and polishing - they are also meant to be flexible, and change based on the input we receive from playtesters. A few points that might help people though - all of the rule changes that went into the second draft saw extensive discussion and in house playtesting before they became a part of it, in some cases years before the draft first came out. This is not to say that there aren't better ideas out there - this is in fact one of the things we hope to get out of the playtesting - but simply that people should be aware that there are good reasons (generally ) for the rules that are currently in the draft. Based on the feedback we get, we hope to be able to determine which rules have holes, are too complex, are useless, are incomplete, need changes, or could be streamlined. Any comments people have along these lines (of which we've received quite a number) are very useful. Something that I think might be helpful in the next playtest draft would be a section discussing why the various changes were made - I think that would be the best way to address a number of people's questions, and also give people some insight as to the thrust of the changes. Finally, one of the reasons we're trying to playtest this system as extensively as possible, and gather as much feedback as possible, is that we can't say for sure exactly what people consider broken enough to justify making changes to it. This is something we've done in the second draft, and hope to continue doing in the third. An excellent example of this is weapon damage and damage bonus. The RQIII damage bonus table is problematic - its progression makes very little sense. Also, the change in human SIZ from 3d6 in RQ2 to 2d6+6 in RQIII resulted in giving almost any combative type a 1d4 damage bonus (all you need is STR 12 and SIZ 13 or STR 11 and SIZ 14 (one completely average stat and one slightly above average stat). As a result, a typical weapon does 1d8+1+1d4 damage, or an average of 8 points of damage, on a bell curved distribution, which makes this average more likely than a linear distribution would. RQIII attempted to compensate for this by increasing armor values and allowing armor to layer, but when dealing with an unarmored or lightly armored human this has the unfortunate effect that an average blow destroys or incapacitates whatever location it hits (an above average human with 13 HP, has but 3 HP arms; 4 HP legs, abdomen and head; 5 HP chest - 8 HP of damage would destroy or incapacitate any of these). Frankly, this strikes us as problematic - it makes the results of damage a bit overwhelming, less interesting, and encourages characters to wear armor at all times. A simple solution would be to use a simpler, slightly less dramatic damage bonus table (with a human having a linear damage bonus ranging from -1 to +3 damage), and drop weapon damage slightly (so a typical weapon does 1d8 damage). This brings the result of a weapon blow more in line with reality, and bring an element of chance into damage done. Armor value could drop to RQ2 levels, and the layering problem simply resolved by making layered armor part of the game - specifically listing values for Western platemail or a Lunar style chain doublet. However, is this change worth making, in terms of the effect it would have on making RQIII style scenarios slightly harder to use? It would simplify and smooth the damage table, simplify and smooth the weapon values (which might range from 1d4 to 1d10, not 1d4, 1d4+2, 1d4+3, 1d6, 1d6+2, etc.) simplify calculating and rolling damage (a scimitar might do 1d8+2 vs. 1d6+2+1d4), simplify calculating armor values (layering would be built into the listed armor types and values), and make the results of damage more interesting (on occasion, you'd be nicked instead of having your arm cut off). Would this be worth it? Hard to say from our point of view, but something we'd love to get playtester feedback on. Skills are another example - we had a number of people mention that they would prefer to see a wider variety of skills and not have skills always lumped together - good example of this problem are Sleight (which means every pickpocket can juggle, or very juggler can pick pockets, hardly realistic), or Devise (which means primitive hunters are also great mechanicians and locksmiths). However, we don't know how much detail people want, or how many new skills - which is why we decided to start with a large skill selection, and move (presumably down) to the level favored by the majority of the playtesters. The next draft should reflect the feedback we've gotten to date on this, as did the second based on the comments we recived on the first. APP is yet another example of this - a characteristic with a number of problems. Is it worth changing to something like CHA or PRE? If most of the feedback we get favors a change, it becomes a very likely candidate for change. If it does not, it will likely stay the way it is. Hope that helped, Oliver  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA05103; Tue, 22 Jun 93 02:44:12 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA21009; Tue, 22 Jun 93 03:43:59 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Tue, 22 Jun 93 3:44:07 EDT From: Mystic Musk Ox To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: RE: FEEDBACK Date: Tue, 22 Jun 93 8:44 BST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <24AA4672C95@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> >One still gets lots of results with the same level of success, and has t take >care of those first hand. They tend to make up the majority of events, in my >experience (average skills ranging 50 to 80%), and the standard system ought to >be cut for this case, not for special cases. I still vote for the level of >success solution whe applicable. >If combat is to be resolved in one opposed roll for attack and parry per combat >round, we lose what is special about RuneQuest combat system - a quite high >degree of detail. The essential system of attack-parry/dodge-hit location-damage >rolls does work, at least as well as any other system I've played (quite a lot). I wasn't advocating reducing RQ combat to one roll for attack and parry - I too prefer the seperate rolls for attack and parry. But it just struck me as odd that in all other cases of skill vs skill except combat, the method for determining success/failure is different to the combat one of attack/parry, and I wondered whether trying to make all systems the same would be a good idea.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA08492; Tue, 22 Jun 93 07:26:43 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA24688; Tue, 22 Jun 93 08:26:23 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Tue, 22 Jun 93 8:26:38 EDT From: P A Snow To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Explaining Why Date: Tue, 22 Jun 93 13:25:40 BST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <24F5997608F@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Yes,Yes,Yes. I think it is an excellent idea to put sections in the next draft explaining why changes were made to various sections of the rules. I think that an excellent element of RQ3 is the small sections where explanation are given of the design philosophy. For example the sections explaining why the skill modifiers have the elements that they do. I think that a problem with the combat rules as they currently stand is that it is not obvious what sort of combat they are trying to represent. I suspect that in fact original RQ like C&S was inspired by experiences within SCA and that is now the hidden model for combat. However this is not helpful for the vast mjority of players who don't fight as a hobby. Can we please have a statement of the feel for combat that is desired. Eg, a book or film etc. On a related note to that. Including natural armour will sway combat to being more heroic and will potentially lead to damages needing to be re-normalised. And also. Of course CON is important for Hit Points that is the definition of CON in most players minds not vice versa. I know rugby players of my size and build (eg SIZ) who are really tough when they are "match fit" they tell me that they can "take the hits but not feel the pain". I'm sure this means that they have trained up their CON any benefit in STR from the training programs is coincidental. Paul Snow  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA12051; Tue, 22 Jun 93 09:36:21 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA29697; Tue, 22 Jun 93 10:36:06 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Tue, 22 Jun 93 10:36:15 EDT From: Mystic Musk Ox To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: FEEDBACK Date: Tue, 22 Jun 93 15:19 BST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <25183BE2501@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Loren Miller: > Whatcha think? I've forgotten what I asked now....  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA13950; Tue, 22 Jun 93 10:08:31 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01172; Tue, 22 Jun 93 11:08:18 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Tue, 22 Jun 93 11:08:22 EDT From: Mystic Musk Ox To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: FEEDBACK Date: Tue, 22 Jun 93 15:45 BST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <2520CF06210@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Assuming that you were serious here (difficult to tell from just text, no?): >How about going the other way and making the other skill vs skill >systems conform to the combat system? I roll my lockpick against the >locksmith's skill, we both fail, there is no effect. I try again. This >time I succeed and so does the locksmith. My attempt is parried. The >third time I fail and the locksmith succeeds. I have been defeated. My >skill is insufficient to pick the lock. If the third time would have >gone the other way, if the lockpicker had succeeded while the smith >failed, then the lock would now be open. Expanding the idea a little, >write a "hit location" table for lock picking and require the picker to >"hit" a certain group of locations, perhaps in a certain order, to pick >the lock. Hm. Quite a nice idea. Depends how complicated you want to make it. >This system would compare levels of success and equal levels would go to >the defender as in combat. We might want to add something for GMs >though, a "conflict system design sheet" so that GMs who wanted to write >skill conflict systems for other game situations beside combat could >have an easy way to do it. It could include "conflict round" length >decisions, the number of SRs required for various maneuvers, and a "hit >location" chart to determine varying effects of success. Characters >could use basic conflict rules, such as the hit location range band >rules that penalize skill and add SRs, in any conflict system in the >game. This would also have the beneficial side-effect of condensing the >basic combat rules to one sheet of paper, just like any other conflict >system. The conflict system rules would cover things like SRs and hit >locations and the various instances of them would simply apply them >situationally. If you allow (in the example of lockpicking, say) 1 round per try, then you have an exact correlation for the example of picking a lock during melee etc. Also, the higher the skill of the creator, the more chance that a novice will be "defeated", and the longer it will take an "attacker" to pick it. If you allow skill over 100% to subtract, as per the combat rules, then being good enough can reduce the time, because you, as the "attacker" are reducing the chance of the defender making a "parry" or vice versa. >Something like this would make RQ totally customizable by the referee >and the playing group, explicitly allowing and encouraging the kind of >modifications (to skill lists, etc) that we design-heads have been >assuming possible for games that emphasize diplomacy or thievery or >sailing or anything. It would encourage referees to expand any section >of the game in detail, increasing the drama and uncertainty of skill >resolutions. It would also let them know they can simplify even the most >complex skill procedures if they want to deemphasize that aspect of the >campaign. Um, so what would you need to define for a skill like this? Initially I guess, the time/roll ratio - for lockpicking maybe 1 roll/round. For oratory/debating 1 roll/hour? Also some guidelines on opposing "skills" that may not be easily definable eg when orating to a crowd, the crowd doesn't have an opposing "oratory" skill as such, but could have a percentage defined to represent their "parries" - 20% = easily convinced or gullible, 90% = firmly opposed. >Okay, that covers the complexity end of the scale. Now how about the >other end, about skill vs skill and skill vs characteristic contests on >a resistance table? Rewrite the resistance table as a single line that >goes from -N to +N and below each number is a percentage value. Roll the >percentage value or less, add the corresponding bonus or minus to your >skill, and you can overcome that level of resisting skill or less. >Multiply characteristics by 5 to get a motive or resistive skill level. >Now you have a simple way of comparing skills and characteristics to use >as a quick alternative to the round-oriented skill conflict rules. something like (off the top of my head, I think this is equivalent to the current resistance table): % roll: 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65%... --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mod : +45 +40 +35 +30 +25 +20 +15 +10 +5 +0 -5% -10% -15%... Attr : +9 +8 +7 +6 +5 +4 +3 +2 +1 +0 -1 -2 -3... >Whatcha think? Maybe a good idea!  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA10703; Tue, 22 Jun 93 09:00:12 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA28144; Tue, 22 Jun 93 09:59:51 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Tue, 22 Jun 93 9:59:58 EDT From: "Loren J. Miller" To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: FEEDBACK Date: 22 Jun 1993 10:01:53 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <250E90330A3@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Mystic Musk Ox writes: > I wasn't advocating reducing RQ combat to one roll for attack and parry - > I too prefer the seperate rolls for attack and parry. Me too. > But it just struck me as odd that in all other cases of skill vs skill > except combat, the method for determining success/failure is different to > the combat one of attack/parry, and I wondered whether trying to make > all systems the same would be a good idea. How about going the other way and making the other skill vs skill systems conform to the combat system? I roll my lockpick against the locksmith's skill, we both fail, there is no effect. I try again. This time I succeed and so does the locksmith. My attempt is parried. The third time I fail and the locksmith succeeds. I have been defeated. My skill is insufficient to pick the lock. If the third time would have gone the other way, if the lockpicker had succeeded while the smith failed, then the lock would now be open. Expanding the idea a little, write a "hit location" table for lock picking and require the picker to "hit" a certain group of locations, perhaps in a certain order, to pick the lock. This system would compare levels of success and equal levels would go to the defender as in combat. We might want to add something for GMs though, a "conflict system design sheet" so that GMs who wanted to write skill conflict systems for other game situations beside combat could have an easy way to do it. It could include "conflict round" length decisions, the number of SRs required for various maneuvers, and a "hit location" chart to determine varying effects of success. Characters could use basic conflict rules, such as the hit location range band rules that penalize skill and add SRs, in any conflict system in the game. This would also have the beneficial side-effect of condensing the basic combat rules to one sheet of paper, just like any other conflict system. The conflict system rules would cover things like SRs and hit locations and the various instances of them would simply apply them situationally. Something like this would make RQ totally customizable by the referee and the playing group, explicitly allowing and encouraging the kind of modifications (to skill lists, etc) that we design-heads have been assuming possible for games that emphasize diplomacy or thievery or sailing or anything. It would encourage referees to expand any section of the game in detail, increasing the drama and uncertainty of skill resolutions. It would also let them know they can simplify even the most complex skill procedures if they want to deemphasize that aspect of the campaign. Okay, that covers the complexity end of the scale. Now how about the other end, about skill vs skill and skill vs characteristic contests on a resistance table? Rewrite the resistance table as a single line that goes from -N to +N and below each number is a percentage value. Roll the percentage value or less, add the corresponding bonus or minus to your skill, and you can overcome that level of resisting skill or less. Multiply characteristics by 5 to get a motive or resistive skill level. Now you have a simple way of comparing skills and characteristics to use as a quick alternative to the round-oriented skill conflict rules. Whatcha think? whoah, +++++++++++++++++++++++23 Loren Miller internet: MILLERL@wharton.upenn.edu "Science" does not remove the terror of the gods.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA13746; Tue, 22 Jun 93 10:05:37 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01090; Tue, 22 Jun 93 11:05:27 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Tue, 22 Jun 93 11:05:31 EDT From: Anthony Ragan To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: (COPY) Re: FEEDBACK Date: Tue, 22 Jun 93 08:05 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <252003E0B9B@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> {Loren writes} Okay, that covers the complexity end of the scale. Now how about the other end, about skill vs skill and skill vs characteristic contests on a resistance table? Rewrite the resistance table as a single line that goes from -N to +N and below each number is a percentage value. Roll the percentage value or less, add the corresponding bonus or minus to your skill, and you can overcome that level of resisting skill or less. Multiply characteristics by 5 to get a motive or resistive skill level. Now you have a simple way of comparing skills and characteristics to use as a quick alternative to the round-oriented skill conflict rules. {I reply} I like this much better than your first suggestion....using strike ranks to calculate all sorts of conflict resolutions looks like too much bother to be worthwhile. Using the resistance table, however, is an elegant and natural solution that takes advantage of one of the great strengths of Chaosium's basic system. If you want to suggest a "Generalized Theory of Conflict Resolution for RQ," this seems to be the best way to do it. --Anthony ecz5rar@mvs.oac.ucla.edu IrishSpy@aol.com Rune Chia Pet of Ernalda  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA18599; Tue, 22 Jun 93 12:01:35 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA06176; Tue, 22 Jun 93 13:01:12 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Tue, 22 Jun 93 13:01:17 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: RE: FEEDBACK Date: Tue, 22 Jun 93 13:01:12 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <253EEAA4262@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> >I wasn't advocating reducing RQ combat to one roll for attack and parry - >I too prefer the seperate rolls for attack and parry. I like the detailed combat system for tactical situations but will use a quick resolution (averaging attack and defense skills) for situations like a 'friendly' contest to first blood between an Orlanthi and a Yelmalio, or when one of the party is off on their own and I want to get back to the main group. The opposed contest of skills includes several ordinary round of combat and skips ahead to where someone gets hit. Thus it does not really work well in a many vs. many combat. This was fine in Pendragon, where heroic knights fight single combat and will take turns against the Black Knight. Quick contest also works well in one-vs.-many contests with the one dividing his skill as he sees fit. _______________ Paul R.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA22524; Tue, 22 Jun 93 13:36:32 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA10409; Tue, 22 Jun 93 14:36:14 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Tue, 22 Jun 93 14:36:27 EDT From: gharris@Jade.Tufts.EDU To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" <> Subject: Scale of Characteristics Date: Tue, 22 Jun 93 14:35:36 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <255846B19BF@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Loren Miller writes: > My opinion on characteristic scales in RQ is that they are > exponential. Every +8 in stat is x2 in ability. This is the scale > suggested by the Size table. Since Strength presumably uses the same > units as Size, it should also be exponential. Since Constitution is > mixed up with Siz and Str in so many formulae, it must also be > exponential. The resistance table suggests that all other stats are > also exponential. So I'm pretty sure that the scales are already > exponential. Curtis Shenton writes: I've had this argument with Loren before. And while I actualy agree with Loren that the stats should be exponential I don't think they are now. I agree SIZ is screwy. But if the stats were exponential then going from dex 16 to 24 should give you 2x as big a bonus to your skills as going from 8 to 16, and I don't think that's the way it works. Also damage bonuses should increase exponentailly too and they don't. Also look at something like FREE INT. If INT was exponentail then 18 INT should be 2x as good as 10 INT right? But INT 18 can only hold 18 spells rather than 20. I have other examples too I could post if you'd like. So I don't think the current system is exponential. And while I think it should be, and SIZ should ve fixed one way or the other, this needs to be debated. It will be a pretty big change. My reply: Well, I am of the opinion that the current stat system is exponential. The SIZ equivalency chart in the RQ3 books clearly shows that SIZ doubles every eight points except at lower values. Since SIZ and CON combine symmetrically for hit points, this implies that CON is exponential as well, and the same argument can be made for STR from the Damage Bonus table. It's clear from the way the resistance table works, as well, that POW is exponential, since 20 is to 15 as 10 is to 5. That leaves INT. Well, devising a metric is problematic for cognitive psychologists, so the meaning of the INT score would be open to debate in any case, but we can say that, since DEX and INT contribute identically to the Manipulation modifier, INT must be on the same sort of scale as DEX, e.g. an exponential one. In answer to some of Curtis' objections: It's true that going from 16 to 24 doesn't double the bonus one gets to DEX- related skills. However, I think this is one of the strengths of having an exponentially-scaled characteristic system. Speaking for linearly-scaled stats, one tends to get diminishing returns for further investment. That is, in a linear system, teh five points from 15 to 20 aren't going to be as valuable as the five points from 10 to 15. An exponential system has this factor built in, saying each doubling of the characteristic adds the same amount to various bonuses, so the points going from 5 to 10 in a linear system would be the same as the points from 10 to 20. In an exponentially scaled system, each of these jumps would be represented by an increase of some set number of points (in RQ3's case, eight). Curtis also objects that id SIZ and STR were truly exponential, then the Damage Bonus table would increase exponentially reather than linearly. Ah, but what does Damage affect? Hit Points. And what determines Hit Points? CON and SIZ. And so, if Con and SIZ are on an exponential scale, so too are Hit Points, then so too is Damage, so the Damage Bonus table is as we would expect it. Consider, too, INT. It's true that 18 INT doesn't allow you to memorize twice as many spells as 10 INT, or, more dramatically, 26 INT doesn't allow memorization of twice as many spells as 18 INT. Of course, this all assumes that memorizing your 18th spell doesn't take any more effort than memorizing your 1st. If we can acknowledge that we get diminishing returns for increased DEX for physical skills, then it's not much of a jump to say that increased INT gives diminishing returns for memorization of spells, and also that learning your latest spell might require more effort than your first, since there's more other stuff for it to get mixed up with. Of course, any exponentially scaled system breaks down at the lower levels, as the SIZ equivalency chart tacitly implies. Otherwise, we would have oddities such as a SIZ 8 person being twice as big as something SIZ 0, or a 4-point wound being twice as dmaging as a -4 point wound. So, I think in order to leave such oddities out of the player's view, I think it would probably be best to leave the exponential nature of characteristics' scale in the background. To be sure, it is important for anyone messing around with the mechanics of the game to be aware of it (us, for instance), but I hardly think it requires acknowledgement in the actual rules. -- gharris@jade.tufts.edu George W. Harris "He'd kill us if he had the chance." Dept. of Mathematics Tufts University The Conversation  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA03819; Tue, 22 Jun 93 17:55:59 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA20166; Tue, 22 Jun 93 18:55:43 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Tue, 22 Jun 93 18:55:54 EDT From: JOVANOVIC@CUCCFA.CCC.COLUMBIA.EDU To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: CHARACTERISTIC SCALES Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1993 18:57:41 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <259D7EF0EF8@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Loren, et. al. - this is what I've been working with for SIZ (and other characteristics) in RQIV: Old RQIII New RQIV SIZ Kg. Increment Kg. Increment 1 5 5 5 5 2 11 6 10 5 3 17 6 15 5 4 23 6 20 5 5 35 12 25 5 6 41 6 30 5 7 49 8 35 5 8 54 5 40 5 9 58 4 45 5 10 64 6 50 5 11 70 6 60 10 12 76 6 70 10 13 83 7 80 10 14 91 8 90 10 15 99 8 100 10 16 108 9 110 10 17 118 10 120 10 18 129 11 130 10 19 140 11 140 10 20 153 13 150 10 21 167 14 170 20 22 182 15 190 20 23 199 17 210 20 24 217 18 230 20 25 237 20 250 20 26 258 21 270 20 27 282 24 290 20 28 307 25 310 20 29 335 28 330 20 30 366 31 350 20 31 399 33 390 40 32 435 36 430 40 33 475 40 470 40 34 518 43 510 40 35 565 47 550 40 36 616 51 590 40 37 672 56 630 40 38 733 61 670 40 39 799 66 710 40 40 871 72 750 40 As you can see, it is fairly close to the RQIII SIZ scale, but far simpler. I have no clue why they used the scale they did instead of doubling every 10 points. With this scale (doubling every 10 points) you get: STR 15 is 2x STR 10 STR 20 is 3x STR 10 STR 25 is 5x STR 10 STR 30 is 7x STR 10 STR 35 is 11x STR 10 STR 40 is 15x STR 10 (Every 10 points is roughly 3x greater) Oliver  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA15221; Wed, 23 Jun 93 01:16:58 -0500 Return-Path: <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA29140; Wed, 23 Jun 93 02:16:44 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 23 Jun 93 2:16:52 EDT From: Nick Brooke <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: OJ's SIZ TABLE Date: 23 Jun 93 02:14:39 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <26130E221A6@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Hi, Oliver! The new SIZ table looks great: neat and clean, and still *roughly* parallel to RQ3. Don't see anyone having problems with this one. For my game, I still say one SIZ is approx. one "Orlanthi Stone" for human character generation, but that's just a crude and non-metric way of guesstimating what's going on. Your stuff is great (a huge improvement on the nonsensical RQ3 table). Nice one! Nick  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA26746; Wed, 23 Jun 93 10:32:06 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA11151; Wed, 23 Jun 93 11:31:46 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 23 Jun 93 11:32:00 EDT From: mabeyke@batman.b11.ingr.com (boris) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: CHARACTERISTIC SCALES Date: Wed, 23 Jun 93 10:34:03 CDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <26A71C048A8@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Liked the SIZ-STR table. I was working on something similar, but (taking a idea from Wizards of the Coast), I had a strictly linear scale from 1-20, and each value past that was double the number ten less than it (i.e. SIZ 1-20 => 6xSIZ kg, SIZ 21-31 => 2x(SIZ-10) kg, SIZ 31-40 => 4x(SIZ-20)kg, etc). OJ's more closely fits the actual range, and is just as easy. My next question is, does this apply to POW as well, as implied by the resistance table. That is, does having a POW greater than ten mean that one has more MPs available each day than just POW. The equivalent scale for POW->MPs would be: POW MPs Available/day 1-10 1-10 11-20 12-30 (+2 MPs per +1 POW) 21-30 34-70 (+4 MPs/+1 POW) 31-40 78-150 (+8 MPs/+1 POW) 10xN 10x(2exp(N) -1) Now while I think this progression is too fast, I do think something similar should be done with POW. Then, those of us who might rarely wish to think of the capabilities of a Waha Tribal Founder or a City God will have a metric without placing POWs in the millions. Also, something like this was probably considered already; the Waha spell Call Founder in GoG says the Founder summoned will have a POW between 40 and 100, depending on the tribe. These are supposed to be the Sons of Storm Bull, are they not? This seems a pitifully low POW unless it also is logarithmic. On the above scale, however, such beings would have from 150 to 10,230 MPs available per day. This seems appropriate for a son of a major god. Note that this does not seem to be the case with the critters in Elder Secrets, unless that are incredibly formiddible. Cwim's POW is shown to be 800, and the Mother of Monsters as 2500! (For those interested, this gives Cwim 12.1 septillion MPs [I think that's 12.1 thousand trillion for those in the UK, if I remember the conversion right*] and 18.1x10exp75 for MoM). * Where here in the U.S. the progression for each power of 1000 is thousand, million, billion, trillion, quad., quint., hex., sept, oct., isn't it, in the U.K., thousand, million, thousand million, billion, thou. billion, mil. billion, trillion, thou. trillion, mil. trillion, bil. trillion, etc? I'm not sure? -- (*) ZZ [] (.) @ e K| o8- |> oK <>< )o 3 8 <| All work and no play brings the world machine one day closer to repair. Dwarfish proverb. Boris |><| +- (| >- .: K * =|= <- (O) ( ) (o) (|) X-  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA27279; Wed, 23 Jun 93 10:44:31 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA11663; Wed, 23 Jun 93 11:44:23 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 23 Jun 93 11:44:26 EDT From: burt@ptltd.com (Burton Choinski) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: COMMENTS and stuff Date: Wed, 23 Jun 93 11:40:41 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <26AA73B6E6A@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Nick Brooke comments: ------------------------------------------------------------ | ii) "Mathematical accuracy" -- I'm against it. I like the current | three-point bands in the Hit Points Per Location chart, 'cos they make | character creation and off-the-cuff combats a lot quicker and easier. I | dislike the overly-literal RQ3 "Skill Results Table" chances for Special | Success 'cos they don't make intuitive sense (I'd play more simply: 01-05% | = impale on a 01; 26-30% = impale on an 01-06; etc.). I don't see why the | huge and fiddly tables have to be introduced: they don't make anything | measurably better or easier, IMHO. Streamlinging (i.e. making many RQ rules to be "rules of thumb") has to have some limit, else we start to lose the detail we want. I see no problem with the extended table. Perhaps just stating the data in an easier format is better. Which would you prefer, for the section that details the location hitpoints? A table, or a set of rules: "For humanoids, arms have HP/4 hits, legs, abdomen and head have HP/3 hits, chest has 2xHP/5. Round all fractions up." A table is nice, for the math impared. Perhaps something more generic: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .... etc A 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 .... .25 B 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 .... .333 C 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 .... .4 Have said chart have a few other convienient values (.1, .2, etc). Then have something like: "Humanoid -- Arms (A), Legs/Abdomen/Head (B) Chest(C)" | iii) Fatigue -- who cares? Honestly, guys, some of the systems I've seen | would fatigue players and gamemasters more than combatants! This is a | comparatively unimportant part of the rules, surely not worth the amount of I have to agree. Fatigue is such a bother to use for me that we don't use it. Have it as an optional rule (IMHO). OJ's comments for feedback: ------------------------------------------------------------ | Finally, one of the reasons we're trying to playtest this system | as extensively as possible, and gather as much feedback as possible, | is that we can't say for sure exactly what people consider broken | enough to justify making changes to it. This is something we've done | in the second draft, and hope to continue doing in the third. Part of the reason why my players are gung-ho into RQ now is the improved rules, and the possibility of even better ones. | An excellent example of this is weapon damage and damage bonus. | simplify and smooth the weapon values (which might range from 1d4 to | 1d10, not 1d4, 1d4+2, 1d4+3, 1d6, 1d6+2, etc.) simplify calculating and | rolling damage (a scimitar might do 1d8+2 vs. 1d6+2+1d4), simplify | calculating armor values (layering would be built into the listed armor | types and values), and make the results of damage more interesting (on | occasion, you'd be nicked instead of having your arm cut off). Would | this be worth it? Hard to say from our point of view, but something | we'd love to get playtester feedback on. This, combined with the combat option to reduce attack skill by 20% (i.e. remove one crit %) to gain +1 damage is much better. Keep it. :) | APP is yet another example of this - a characteristic with a | number of problems. Is it worth changing to something like CHA or | PRE? If most of the feedback we get favors a change, it becomes | a very likely candidate for change. If it does not, it will likely | stay the way it is. I think having APP (or whatever) represent personal magnitism, presense, aura, bearing, etc. rather than physical beauty is the better way to go. And as such, a renaming should be done to prevent future confusion. Loren J. Miller suggests: ------------------------------------------------------------ | How about going the other way and making the other skill vs skill | systems conform to the combat system? I roll my lockpick against the | locksmith's skill, we both fail, there is no effect. I try again. This | time I succeed and so does the locksmith. My attempt is parried. The | third time I fail and the locksmith succeeds. I have been defeated. My | skill is insufficient to pick the lock. If the third time would have I like this. It solves the "pick locks until you get it" problem and provides a good reason why. Mystic Musk Ox notes: ------------------------------------------------------------ | % roll: 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% ... | ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ... | Mod : +45 +40 +35 +30 +25 +20 +15 +10 +5 +0 -5% -10% -15% ... | Attr : +9 +8 +7 +6 +5 +4 +3 +2 +1 +0 -1 -2 -3 ... I think your table is off by one, but I get the general idea. For characteristics, simply add the difference from yours to his to 10 and roll less then or equal to that on 1d20. Quick and easy. Skills can follow in the same way, divide by 5. Why roll percentage when it's really just a d20? We don't have percentage hit locations, do we? Oliver gives us a new SIZ table: ------------------------------------------------------------ | Old RQIII New RQIV | | SIZ Kg. Increment Kg. Increment | 1 5 5 5 5 | 2 11 6 10 5 ... | 39 799 66 710 40 | 40 871 72 750 40 | As you can see, it is fairly close to the RQIII SIZ scale, | but far simpler. I have no clue why they used the scale | they did instead of doubling every 10 points. I like it. Much cleaner. It should be extended out like the table in ol' book 3. -- Burton  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA29483; Wed, 23 Jun 93 11:35:49 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA13826; Wed, 23 Jun 93 12:35:37 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 23 Jun 93 12:35:44 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: CHARACTERISTIC SCALES Date: Wed, 23 Jun 93 12:35:42 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <26B82A804A3@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> POW: > than ten mean that one has more MPs available each day than just POW. > The equivalent scale for POW->MPs would be: > POW MPs Available/day > 1-10 1-10 > 11-20 12-30 (+2 MPs per +1 POW) > 21-30 34-70 (+4 MPs/+1 POW) > 31-40 78-150 (+8 MPs/+1 POW) > 10xN 10x(2exp(N) -1) I'd rather see high POW entities get more MP's but keep the same regeneration rate, i.e., that their battery grows faster than their generator. This would put the greater entities on a slower time scale, which is right, I think. In our campaign true Giants (like Gonn Orta) have POW in the scores and MP's available in the hundred to thousands, but regenerate MPs on a much slower time scale: weeks, seasons, or years instead of days. (Slower as they get older.) In general I think that humans should be thought of as having a 'fast' life cycle and some of the other creatures (Great Trees, Giants, etc.) should regenerate MP's on a much slower time scale. I also think Cwim, the Mother of Monsters, etc. should be rescaled into the logarithmic scale. I hope this won't affect anyone's campaign too much... does anyone have PCs with POWs over 40? I suppose it's possible for a shaman's fetch. (In our longest-running campaign, 20 years on Glorantha or 4-5 on Earth, we had some Priests with 30+ points of Rune Magic.) In general I support the idea of 'big' characters having a lot of magical 'batteries' (MP storage) relative to their 'Generators' (POW). This yields a satisfying (to me) picture of the 'big' magicians saving up for a long time to do bigger magic. RQ3 had POW (POW spirits) cheaper than MP storage, which seemed wrong to me. Note that in Boris' scheme larger Spirit Magic and Sorcery should have a non-linear cost in MP's. Bladesharp 20 (available through Lunar Magic) should cost 30 MP's, etc. We had a renegade insane Lunar Priestess who could cast Bladesharp 20 in one campaign; this spell _should_ cost alot because, as we discovered, its effects are devastating. More later, Paul P.S. Lunar Magic probably gets rescaled like sorcery in RQ4?  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA06769; Wed, 23 Jun 93 14:18:00 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA20287; Wed, 23 Jun 93 15:17:30 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 23 Jun 93 15:17:48 EDT From: burt@ptltd.com (Burton Choinski) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: DAMAGE Date: Wed, 23 Jun 93 15:13:38 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <26E34860A2A@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> As I was pruning my copy of the 2.0 draft to include some of the changes here, I was working over the "Crush" special damage (and critical damage). As is, Joe Macemaster can get a special on some god-awful armored creature like the MoM or a dragon and reduce it's armor by hundreds, even thousands. Of course, not that it would do much good, but it's the principal of the thing. :) How about a limiter on this, and on the criticals: Special crush: Reduce armor by half or by the attacker's STR, whichever is less. Critical Slash: As above: Critical Crush: Reduce armor by 3/4 or by attacker's STRx2, whichever is less. Critical Impale: Reduce armor by half or by attacker's STRx2. Comments? Otherwise criticals are just too damned dangerous for something of pure luck. -- Burton  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA08092; Wed, 23 Jun 93 14:50:05 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA21552; Wed, 23 Jun 93 15:49:50 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 23 Jun 93 15:49:58 EDT From: gharris@Jade.Tufts.EDU To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" <> Subject: Comments on the Combat Round Date: Wed, 23 Jun 93 15:49:15 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <26EBEEB4FBC@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> I thought I'd throw out some thoughts on the various things being done with combat. DAMAGE BONUS & NATURAL ARMOR Personally, I think the revised damage bonus chart as in the v2.0 draft is nearly ideal. The jumps aren't as large, and they're at more natural places. It will result in larger damage bonuses for exceptionally large and/or strong creature, but it doesn't really matter if the giant does 75 points or only 50, does it? I would be opposed to going to a fixed value damage bonus. First, I like the variability that the die roll gives. This at least gives a chance of surviving if you miss your parry against that Great Troll, and there's a certain feeling about rolling lots and lots of dice. Secondly (and I'm surprised no one has at least mentioned this in passing) we would have to redefine the effects of a crush. I don't know about you, but I'm not too excited about getting the maximum value of a constant. I say, what's currently in the draft is fine. As to having some form of natural armor or resistance to damage based on some combination of SIZ, STR or CON, well, I think it would cause more problems than it would solve. We would have to address how it's cumulative with worn armor, how does it affect slashing, crushing and impaling weapons, etc. etc. Moreover, with the combat system having been overhauled to make getting killed more difficult already, this might lead to nearly invulnerable characters. I say leave it out. THE COMBAT ROUND Am I the only one who really detests the new combat round? I find the flat ceiling of two actions for every character regardless of speed or ability to be repulsively democratic. You could have your elf with Quickdraw Arrow 95% and a Dex of 20, and then a trollkin with Quickdraw Slingbullet 95% and a Dex of 10, and a human shaman with a dex of 8 casting Protection 3. SR1, the elf draws and fires. The trollkin is getting his slingbullet out and will fire in SR3. The shaman is preparing to cast the spell. In SR3, the trollkin fires his sling, and the shaman begins casting. SR4 the elf fires his second arrow. For the rest of the round the elf stands there, tapping his foot, unable to do anything while everyone else gets finished with their actions. Finally, in SR9, the trollkin gets his second sling bullet off, and then in SR10, the shaman finally gets his spell off. Only then, after standing around waiting for more time than he actually was doing anything, can the elf so much as draw another arrow. I say, if someone is fast, let them do as much as they can. I think some of the changes are in the right direction (I never played that one couldn't parry while casting a spell), but I really dislike the two action rule. Here's what I would propose. It's maybe a little more complicated, but it gives fast characters an advantage, which I feel they certainly deserve, without screwing things up immensely. Basically, you have three options. You can take two attacks, one attack and one defensive action, or just two defensive actions. If you are taking two attacks, you cannot dodge or parry. You take whichever attack you choose to first. Your second attack comes three strike ranks after that. If you have sufficient strike ranks left in the round, you could move (if unengaged), or cast a spell (taking three strike ranks in addition to the time to cast the spell [this isn't as absurd as it sounds. A Siz 20 Dex 20 character with a Pike could attack twice by SR4, giving enough time to cast a 2-point spirit magic spell]) If you are taking one attack and one defensive option, you declare an opponent you will parry or dodge (how specific you have to be is open to debate). In addition, you *may* make one attack. You may cast a spell either before or after the attack if you have the strike ranks, and you may move if unengaged after the attack. You may also elect not to attack, and use all your strike ranks for movement of spellcasting (or both simultaneously, even). If you take two defensive options, then you declare two attacks/opponents that you will dodge or parry. You can do nothing else. So, you have a sequence of actions you can take (if you have time), including none, one or two attacks, and if not taking two attacks you can also defend. If you chose, you can just defend, and defend against two attacks. If casting a spell that is not complete by the end of the round, just continue in the next round (unless you take the defend-twice option, in which case the spell is aborted), attacking after the spell is cast (if you have time). Missile weapons: give us back the old rates of fire for missile weapons! You can draw and fire a c. bow in one round. You can draw and fire a heavy crossbow in one round. Right. I say, some weapons you can fire once a round, some take more than one round, some you can fire more than once a round, and higher Dex characters fire these faster. The general opinion of the campaign I'm currently in is that the new missile weapon rules bite big time. So, let me illustrate with an example. Principals: Drang, a Siz 20 Dex 18 Troll with a troll maul, Dex SR2, Melee SR2, Attacks with the maul in SR3. Knute, a Siz 10 Dex 14 human with a bastard sword, Dex SR3, Melee SR 5, attacks with the sword in SR6. Haralt, a Siz 15 Dex 10 human with a longspear, Dex SR3, Melee SR4, attacks with the longspear in 5. Haralt and Knute are double teaming Drang. Drang declares he will attack first Knute, then Haralt. Knute will parry and attack, then start casting a 3-point spirit magic spell. Haralt will cast an eight-point Drain Life at Drang, and parry. SR 3, Drang attacks Knute, Knute parries. In SR 6 Drang will attack Haralt and Knute will attack Drang. Drang has the higher Dex, so he attacks first, and Haralt parries. Knute then attacks Drang. In SR9, Knute starts casting his spirit magic spell, which will take 6SR, so it will go off in SR5 of next round. Haralt's Drain life will take 3+8=11 SRs to cast, so it will go off in SR1 of the next round, and he can then attack in SR 1+3+5=9. Drang, if he hasn't been taken down by Knute's attack and Haralt's spell, will get a normal sequence next round. MISCELLANEOUS Of course I like the new Strike Rank table, since I'm the one that suggested it. However, I don't think Dex and Siz should both be limited to contributing 20; I think it should perhaps be more flexible. What I would prefer would be limiting the contribution of Siz to 25 and that of Dex to 30, but for simplicity's sake I could see limiting them both to 25. Also, I think for consistency's sake, the table should have the breaks one higher, that is: Dex Dex SR 1-10 4 11-15 3 16-20 2 21+ 1 Dex+Siz Melee SR 1-15 7 16-20 6 21-25 5 26-30 4 31-35 3 36-40 2 41+ 1 This way, the breaks would be at the same places they are for the armor size chart and the (current) damage bonus table. Also, since 21 is human maximum Dex, it makes sense for it to mean something. Of course, you shouldn't make this change unless you allow Siz and/or Dex to contribute more than 20 points, since otherwise no one would have a Melee SR of 1. I like the new Hit Point/Location "table". I always thought the three-point bands were clunky and inelegant. Having it be a simple divide, round up is much more intuitive. What else? Oh, yes. What exactly can a character who has taken more than twice the hit points in a non-vital location do? Can she cast healing magic on that location? Can she first aid that location? If she does first aid that location, can she does anything else after she does? That is, do the effects of such damage extend after the first aid, or is the person then considered able to do anything that doesn't really require the location, e.g. cast spells etc., although probably at a minus? The rules seem to imply that the *only* thing such a character can do is first aid the location, and that such first aid only stops bleeding, so thereafter the character can take no action until someone else heals her. Is this a correct interpretation? More later, -- gharris@jade.tufts.edu George W. Harris "He'd kill us if he had the chance." Dept. of Mathematics Tufts University The Conversation  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA13776; Wed, 23 Jun 93 00:12:01 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA28033; Wed, 23 Jun 93 01:11:36 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 23 Jun 93 1:11:57 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: CHARACTERISTIC SCALES Date: Wed, 23 Jun 93 15:11:10 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <2601BD02DB2@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> OJ: the new size table is very nice! One problem with a strict +10 to stat is x2 for size is that the size range 8-18 has to correspond to the adult male human mass range of ~40 -> 130 kg, disregarding those sizes that are generally the result of some medical condition. The logarithmic scale would become negative around 20 kg. Re: size and strength - one thing I have noticed about the RQIV draft is that strength has become completely decoupled from size in the stat training regimen, where the limits are now the same as for the other stats (max roll plus min roll or 1.5 times start). The limit of max of Str, Con and Siz has gone. I have no problem with the decoupling of Con from Size, as I don't see any relation between Size and fitness or health, but in my view strength is directly related to size in a healthy person (and the inclusion of "false size" ie fat, indicates that Siz is generally the body weight of a fit person). This leads to the IMO absurd cases of Str 3 Size 18 and Str 21 Size 8. A suggestion: the limit for strength is 1.5xsize. A rolled strength of greater than this limit is reduced to this limit, and one of less can be increased to it. This has the obvious problem that the strength roll immediately becomes less significant than the other stat rolls. It also makes the min + max strength limit 26 for an adult male human, but this may be less of a problem: Strength 26 can lift (on resistance table) about 250 kg 50%. Does anyone know the limits for weightlifters and bench presses? Opinions? On another matter: people were talking about a limit for POW and "natural priests". While I agreed with the conclusion that this would be a crippling change for Glorantha, using the 1.5 x roll system as well as the min + max would work fairly well IMHO. A rolled pow of 10 would allow a maximum pow of 15; you'd need a roll of a least 14 to reach 21. I'd suggest making the POW gain roll still based on maximum species Pow, though. This might also limit those elves and ogres with 2d6+6 Pow a bit more, too. Graeme.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA11592; Wed, 23 Jun 93 16:05:56 -0500 Return-Path: <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25029; Wed, 23 Jun 93 17:05:44 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 23 Jun 93 17:05:50 EDT From: Nick Brooke <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: STRIKE RANKS Date: 23 Jun 93 17:02:45 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <2700360603F@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> I'd not mentioned it before, but IF strike ranks are going to be kept for RQ4 (and I still hope that it's a big if), then George Harris's proposed system (using SIZ+DEX rather than SIZ and DEX to give the basic melee strike rank) does do away with my basic objection -- that the system reinforces the old RQ2 "threshold" characteristic values. I still find the basic Strike Rank mechanics clunky and unrealistic to use, but maybe that's just me... Anyway, we never had any trouble playing without SR's in RQ2 or RQ3, so I guess we'll just strip them from RQ4 when it comes out. I'll shut up about this now, unless something more irritating is suggested. ==== Nick ====  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA14034; Wed, 23 Jun 93 16:36:04 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA26230; Wed, 23 Jun 93 17:35:55 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 23 Jun 93 17:35:58 EDT From: jjm@zycor.lgc.com (johnjmedway) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: SKILL v. SKILL (for real) Date: Wed, 23 Jun 93 16:35:30 CDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <27083774AB9@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> sorry about accidentally resending an entire posting. DEX <= 10, obviously. original poster = ?: >> How about going the other way and making the other skill vs skill >> systems conform to the combat system? I roll my lockpick against the >> locksmith's skill, we both fail, there is no effect. I try again. This >> time I succeed and so does the locksmith. My attempt is parried. The I _really_ like this, and have used similar before. I would not use the word 'parried' in a general description, of course, but instead 'blocked' or 'defeated' >> failed, then the lock would now be open. Expanding the idea a little, >> write a "hit location" table for lock picking and require the picker to >> "hit" a certain group of locations, perhaps in a certain order, to pick >> the lock. I'd blow off the "Hit Location" chart, though, and just make the requirement a certain number of successes, 1, 2 out of 3, 3 in a row, depending on how intricate the contest is. >> % roll: 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65%... >> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Mod : +45 +40 +35 +30 +25 +20 +15 +10 +5 +0 -5% -10% -15%... >> Attr : +9 +8 +7 +6 +5 +4 +3 +2 +1 +0 -1 -2 -3... Much better than the standard resistance table. Subtraction isn't so hard that we need that mondo table, when just 3 lines conveys _all_ of the same info, do we? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | john_medway@zycor.lgc.com | Landmark Graphics Corp | 512.292.2325 | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA14972; Wed, 23 Jun 93 16:56:42 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA26893; Wed, 23 Jun 93 17:56:31 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 23 Jun 93 17:56:36 EDT From: curtiss@netcom.com (Curtis Shenton) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: STRIKE RANKS Date: Wed, 23 Jun 93 14:56:42 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <270DB6471A7@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> > > I'd not mentioned it before, but IF strike ranks are going to be kept for > RQ4 (and I still hope that it's a big if), then George Harris's proposed > system (using SIZ+DEX rather than SIZ and DEX to give the basic melee > strike rank) does do away with my basic objection -- that the system > reinforces the old RQ2 "threshold" characteristic values. I also would like SIZ+DEX since I'd like to avoid threshold stat scores as much as possible. > > I still find the basic Strike Rank mechanics clunky and unrealistic to use, > but maybe that's just me... Nope it ain't just you. :) I'd love to get rid of them. > > Anyway, we never had any trouble playing without SR's in RQ2 or RQ3, so I > guess we'll just strip them from RQ4 when it comes out. I'll shut up about > this now, unless something more irritating is suggested. I"d like to see more talk about Loren's RQ Lite idea. I'd like to see sort of a stripped down version of RQ as part of RQIV, without SR too. > > ==== > Nick > ==== > -- Curtis Shenton curtiss@netcom.com internet & 4@3091 WWIVnet "At the GM's option, strategic nuclear weapons may be considered 'magical'"-From the CyberCthulhu rules in Interface  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA15866; Wed, 23 Jun 93 17:27:13 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA27722; Wed, 23 Jun 93 18:27:01 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 23 Jun 93 18:27:06 EDT From: burt@ptltd.com (Burton Choinski) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: COMMENTS, DAMAGE Date: Wed, 23 Jun 93 18:23:22 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <2715E362CCE@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> George W. Harris notes: ------------------------------------------------------------ | DAMAGE BONUS & NATURAL ARMOR | | Personally, I think the revised damage bonus chart as in | the v2.0 draft is nearly ideal. The jumps aren't as large, and | they're at more natural places. Personally, I would be happier if they chucked the d2 or d4, and just had d6 or d3. So real large creatures might have 10d6+d3... use a different color die for the half die. :) Given: each +5 adds +2 to the average damage done, and 1d3 has an average of 2 hows about: STR + SIZ Damage Bonus Average 01-05 -2d3 -4 06-10 -2d3* -3 11-15 -1d3 -2 16-20 -1d3* -1 21-25 0 0 26-30 +1d3* +1 31-35 +1d3 +2 36-40 +2d3* +3 41-45 +2d3 +4 46-50 +3d3* +5 51-55 +3d3 +6 56-60 +4d3* +7 61-65 +4d3 +8 each +10 +1d3 +2 What is a d3*? Simply subtract 1 from the roll before adding the results. A little cleaner looking then "+3d3-1" or "-(1d3-1)". A general formula for figuring high values would be (STR+SIZ-21)/10 in d3's, with fractions ranging from .5-.9 indicating d3*. Since the averages are correct, one can simply use the averages for speed of play, or roll if getting high damage is a "make-or-break" situation. The good thing about it is, everyone has a d3 if they have d6's :) | As to having some form of natural armor or resistance to | damage based on some combination of SIZ, STR or CON, well, I | think it would cause more problems than it would solve. We would | have to address how it's cumulative with worn armor, how does it | affect slashing, crushing and impaling weapons, etc. etc. Like I posted earlier, I don't think it would help too much against blades. I dunno. I like the idea of fist fights or brawls where the PC slams a chair on the big guy and he just turns and smiles. :) | THE COMBAT ROUND | | Am I the only one who really detests the new combat | round? I find the flat ceiling of two actions for every | character regardless of speed or ability to be repulsively | democratic. I'm not sure how this could be done within reasonable rules and without lots of exceptions to memorize to prevent High-dex or High-Melee characters from rolling over normal people. | Basically, you have three options. You can take two | attacks, one attack and one defensive action, or just two | defensive actions. Okay so far. | If you are taking two attacks, you cannot dodge or parry. | You take whichever attack you choose to first. Your second | attack comes three strike ranks after that. If you have | sufficient strike ranks left in the round, you could move (if | unengaged), or cast a spell (taking three strike ranks in | addition to the time to cast the spell [this isn't as absurd as | it sounds. A Siz 20 Dex 20 character with a Pike could attack | twice by SR4, giving enough time to cast a 2-point spirit magic | spell]) How many SR does the move take? With this case you have a person use a Pike and lickity-chop some poor bastard twice, then do a double move. Seems a tad extreme, especially if you are the one facing the pike. :) But since Nick hates strike ranks, let me suggest another alternative for him to grouse about. :) Way back with Traveller there was a product called "Snapshot" which was designed for general Melee and ranged combat. What this system did was give each combatant a number of action points based on Dexterity (and I think Endurance as well). You then spent those action points. It took X amount to move once, A certain amount to aim, an amount to fire, etc. This is just a suggestion...I have no idea on how to figure the allocation or such that Low Siz and Dex people are also not overrun by their bigger and faster opponents. | MISCELLANEOUS | | Of course I like the new Strike Rank table, since I'm the | one that suggested it. However, I don't think Dex and Siz should | both be limited to contributing 20; I think it should perhaps be | more flexible. What I would prefer would be limiting the | contribution of Siz to 25 and that of Dex to 30, but for | simplicity's sake I could see limiting them both to 25. Hrrrm. I think limiting it at 21 (3d6, low 3 plus high 18) makes better sense. But I like the new break points...much cleaner looking. -- Burton  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA05468; Thu, 24 Jun 93 09:34:18 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA16081; Thu, 24 Jun 93 10:31:11 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Thu, 24 Jun 93 10:33:07 EDT From: mabeyke@batman.b11.ingr.com (boris) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: CHARACTERISTIC SCALES Date: Thu, 24 Jun 93 9:33:25 CDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <2816FAA219B@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> > >POW: > > > >> than ten mean that one has more MPs available each day than just POW. > >> The equivalent scale for POW->MPs would be: > > > >> POW MPs Available/day > >> 1-10 1-10 > >> 11-20 12-30 (+2 MPs per +1 POW) > >> 21-30 34-70 (+4 MPs/+1 POW) > >> 31-40 78-150 (+8 MPs/+1 POW) > >> 10xN 10x(2exp(N) -1) > > The idea about keeping the same recovery rate (POW/day) is nice, but > it will make calculation of recovery time more difficult for players. > One problem about this: how do we do MP vs. MP rolls for spell effects > /spirit combat now? POW vs POW? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Ah, THERE'S the bug I didn't catch. Spirit combat, being based on the resistance table, in inherently logarithmic; plus it's already built into the 4th Ed. rules that the higher your MPs are the more you'll drain from your opponant in spirit combat. If we base POW on a log scale at all, we need to have it folded into the system (like HPs are now). Perhaps make MPs on the same scale as POW. Assume that large spells are also logarithmic, since HPs and everything else is. So a Bladesharp 20 (if such a thing existed) would be three times as potent as BS10, not twice. For small spells, we can have the following optional rule: if a character casts a spell 10 points less than their current MPs, half the MP cost of the spell (minimum cost 1). If it's 20 points less, quarter the cost (again, minimum cost 1 MP). This is close to the same as the chart above, and we don't have to change spirit combat and MP vs MP contests. For example, say a priest with 20 POW had to cast ten two point spells (Heal 2's on a squad). If we use the chart, then he starts with 30 MPs, uses 20, and has 10 left. If we use this method, for the first 9 castings his MPs >= 2 + 10, so they cost 1 MP each. The last cost him two MPs, leaving him with 9. Not exactly the same, but close enough, and certainly an advantage for him over the current system. It is a bit more complicated, but most folks I know who play magic specialists (who would get most of the complication) don't mind this kind of thing as long as they're better off by it. ---- (*) ZZ [] (.) @ e K| o8- |> oK <>< )o 3 8 <| "Early to set, early to rise, it's all required by the Compromise." Arachne Solara's statement to Yelm at the SunStop. Boris |><| +- (| >- .: K * =|= <- (O) ( ) (o) (|) X-  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA09503; Thu, 24 Jun 93 10:57:10 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA19704; Thu, 24 Jun 93 11:56:57 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Thu, 24 Jun 93 11:57:02 EDT From: Anthony Ragan To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: STRIKE RANKS (heresy?) Date: Thu, 24 Jun 93 08:55 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <282DE095A44@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Hi all, Well....since Nick and Curtis have already mentioned it....can we get rid of strike ranks? While the SR system is appealing in theory (an exact way to determine what happens when), it practice it just gets in the way of the action by slowing things down. I like a lot of tactical options in combat, but strike ranks just add unnecessary math. (Ok, so I'm math impaired....:) Personally, I like rolled initiatives (forgive the AD&Dism...), but I do think SIZ and DEX should count for something. For discussion's sake, how about this: calculate the melee SR as normal (based on the addition of SIZ + DEX, correct?) and use the melee SR as a modifier to a d10 roll. Low result (Melee SR +d10) goes first in the round. I suppose something similar could be done for a spell SR, too. There's probably endless holes in this, but I'll be interested in the comments. As for Loren's proposed RQLite, would it be possible to have a basic set of core combat and spell rules (inclusing sorcery) and then a series of modular, optional add-on rules for those who want more complex play? (I have in mind something like Gurps basic and advanced combat) I would think that this level of customizability would broaden RQ's appeal. take care, --Anthony ecz5rar@mvs.oac.ucla.edu IrishSpy@aol.com Rune Chia Pet of Ernalda  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA20621; Thu, 24 Jun 93 14:30:50 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA28594; Thu, 24 Jun 93 15:30:30 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Thu, 24 Jun 93 15:30:39 EDT From: burt@ptltd.com (Burton Choinski) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: COMMENTS, DAMAGE, ATTRIBUTES Date: Thu, 24 Jun 93 15:26:53 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <2866D651753@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Anthony Ragan asks: ------------------------------------------------------------ | Well....since Nick and Curtis have already mentioned it....can we get | rid of strike ranks? While the SR system is appealing in theory (an exact ... | calculate the melee SR as normal (based on the addition of SIZ + DEX, | correct?) and use the melee SR as a modifier to a d10 roll. Low result | (Melee SR +d10) goes first in the round. Actually, this doesn't sound to bad, but perhaps 1d6 would be better...lot more of them kicking around, soe everyone can have their own. They roll, and keep the roll in front of them. Other stuff... ------------------------------------------------------------ Yesterday I posted a revised damage table, based on d3's. It had the advantage of having an integare average, so if you have creature with a 10d3 damage bonus you could just use a +20 (ave of a d3 is 2) for speed, or roll it out completely, or mix it (+5d3+10) as desired. Back home I was looking at it and thought I had it wrong -- but looking at it again, it actually makes more sense, since the average man (SIZ 13, STR 11) has a bonus of +0. This lessened damage discards the need for natural armor. SPECIAL, CRITICAL hits: Consider: Willy the Bold, STR 17, Dagger 100% goes up to the Mother of Monsters (the fool), manages to get up to the neck, fastens himself on and starts hacking away. No way is it gonna dodge, and we'll give him the +25% bonus for helpless opponent. 6% of the time he does squat. But that 6% of the time he does real damage, ignoring the huge amount of armor. Multiply Willy by several hundred flying Orlanthi, who fly up, chop, and fly off. Continue for the next week or until the head falls off, whichever comes first. Now, I chose this extreme point to show how bogus the critical "ignore armor" rule is. You can say "Well, realistically you can't ignore all that armor..." No Kidding. Now, how does this sound as a rule addendum to moderate this? Special Crush, Critical Slash, Critical Impale: Reduce effective armor by 1 AP per 5 points of STR (not less then 0 AP) Critical Crush: Reduce effective armor by 2 AP per 5 points of STR (not less then 0 AP) This effectively does the same thing, at low armor levels, but limits it against high ones. Joe Macehound, STR 17, clouts you with a critical Maul hit. As far as his damage is concerned, the first 8 points (16-20 counts as the 4th set of 5 STR) of your armor is ignored. Now take our flying Orlanthi hit squad. Assuming you could arm them all with crushing weapons, the best you are looking at is a reduction of 10 AP (for STR 21), but in general a reduction of 8 AP. Not enough for the MoM to even notice. But when facing men in armor, a special success drops the average man by 3 AP (which, assuming chain, is half). ATTRIBUTES: I was thinking again on balanced attribute modifiers and came up with the following. How do they sound compared to your latest ones, Oliver? Agility: STR + DEX - SIZ - 10 Why? DEX is speed of moving your body, STR is the power to move it, but bigger people have more mass to move. Communication: APP + INT/2 + POW/2 - 20 Why? APP is one's personal presense, and ability to hold the attention of others, INT because intelligence helps, POW for that "certain quality" about you that interests people. Knowledge: INT + INT - 20 Why? INT is reasoning power, the ability to manipulate information. Magic: INT + DEX/2 + POW/2 - 20 Why? high INT people can better visualize the paths of magic, DEX aids in converting that mental image to a physical one, and high POW people are better "channels" for magic then low ones. Manipulation: DEX + CON/2 + STR/2 - 20 Why? Having the DEX indicates fine control. STR aids in handling unbalanced items, and high CON people have better hand-eye coodination. Perception: CON + INT/2 + POW/2 - 20 Why? Healthy people have clearer senses, High INT people can make better sense of said perceptions, and POW provides those hunches to fill in the gaps, or that odd luck of just catching a glimpse or whiff of something. Stealth: DEX + INT/2 + CON/2 - SIZE/2 - POW/2 - 10 Why? High DEX people can move more gracefully than low DEX ones, and being healthier aids in this body control. High INT aids in choosing the better paths. Larger people have some disadvantage, as do those with a greater magical presense. Now, I know you were considering eliminating Stealth, but if it remained how does the above look? The use of attributes is spread out a little more (using CON more for health and perceptions, APP for presense and charisma). -- Burton  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA27317; Thu, 24 Jun 93 02:21:01 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA07088; Thu, 24 Jun 93 03:20:45 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Thu, 24 Jun 93 3:20:56 EDT From: gal502@huxley.anu.edu.au (Graeme Lindsell) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: CHARACTERISTIC SCALES Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1993 17:21:16 -0600 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <27A43B27DE3@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> >POW: > >> than ten mean that one has more MPs available each day than just POW. >> The equivalent scale for POW->MPs would be: > >> POW MPs Available/day >> 1-10 1-10 >> 11-20 12-30 (+2 MPs per +1 POW) >> 21-30 34-70 (+4 MPs/+1 POW) >> 31-40 78-150 (+8 MPs/+1 POW) >> 10xN 10x(2exp(N) -1) This is rather nice isn't it? Making Pow exponential allows you to pitch those "heroic" characters better. It gives an explanation as to why a creature with POW 70 will destroy one with 60 with magic without any trouble. So all of the big monsters in ES have to be refigured, who has ever used their stats for anything except going "gosh!" The idea about keeping the same recovery rate (POW/day) is nice, but it will make calculation of recovery time more difficult for players. One problem about this: how do we do MP vs. MP rolls for spell effects /spirit combat now? POW vs POW? >should cost 30 MP's, etc. We had a renegade insane Lunar Priestess who >could cast Bladesharp 20 in one campaign; this spell _should_ cost alot >because, as we discovered, its effects are devastating. Well my recommendation would be to turn lunar magic into a school of sorcery (see a post in the digest tomorrow, I hope). Rescaling the MP costs of sorcery would make a sorcerers life even harder. Graeme --------------------------------------------------------------------- Graeme Lindsell Email: gal502@huxley.anu.edu.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA01252; Thu, 24 Jun 93 19:00:31 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA07561; Thu, 24 Jun 93 20:00:07 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Thu, 24 Jun 93 20:00:24 EDT From: JOVANOVIC@CUCCFA.CCC.COLUMBIA.EDU To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: CHARACTERISTIC MODIFIERS Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1993 20:01:55 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <28AEBD4572D@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Burton, that set of modifiers looks very close to the latest set of modifiers. You use CON in a few places I'm not sure about - for manipulations, INT seems more relevant than CON (DEX strikes me as what covers hand-eye coordination, not CON). CON seems to more respresent health, physical condition, resistance to disease and poison, and alertness. I could see using it in Stealth the way you do, but I'd be more tempted to make POW a primary modifier - that way people would have a reason to want to have a character with a low original POW roll (they make great theives) as well as a character with a high original POW roll (the make great magicians or shaman). Oliver  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA29240; Thu, 24 Jun 93 04:00:49 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA08009; Thu, 24 Jun 93 05:00:33 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Thu, 24 Jun 93 5:00:37 EDT From: gal502@huxley.anu.edu.au (Graeme Lindsell) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: COMMENTS, DAMAGE Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1993 19:00:56 -0600 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <27BED230EFC@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Burton notes: (Gives new damage bounus table) > Since the averages are correct, one can simply use the averages for speed > of play, or roll if getting high damage is a "make-or-break" situation. Or the GM can choose to one or the other at the start: the integer averages are a good idea. >George W. Harris notes: >| As to having some form of natural armor or resistance to >| damage based on some combination of SIZ, STR or CON, well, I >| think it would cause more problems than it would solve. We would >| have to address how it's cumulative with worn armor, how does it >| affect slashing, crushing and impaling weapons, etc. etc. Not necessarily. I don't like the armour layering rules at all: why should leather be less effective if it is under another suit of armour? I don't think positing armour is exponential like the stats works: if it was, then 2 points of armour should take only 1 point off a 10+ damage hit, rather than reducing 2 points off, and would have no effect on a 21+ damage hit. The problem with armour layering should be corrected by encumberance rules rather than mathematically complex layering rules: it should be less effective to wear two light forms of armour than one heavier set. The main problem natural armour will solve is natural combat IMHO, which is way too deadly right know once people get damage bonuses. Obviously yes, it will require more playtesting. As for Burton's point that it shouldn't work against blades etc: I think this will generally come out in the wash. Most bladed weapons do more damage than natural weapons anyway, so I think this is already factored in. Compare Fighting Fit (Str=Con=Siz=13) vs Humongous(all 18): Fit gets +1 to damage, +1 to armour, Humongous gets +3 to both. With fists, Fit will almost certainly lose, as he does an effective d3-2 damage vs d3+2. With daggers, he also is at a disadvantage: 1d4 vs 1d4+4, but he has a chance, and should win if he is significantly better. With broadswords, it comes to 1d8-1 to 1d8+3, and with poleaxes to 3d6-2 to 3d6+2: Humongous has an edge, but little more. Skill will win. If we were to make lots of conditions on the natural armour, I don't think it would really be worth the trouble . I don't even like the "soft armour vs crushing weapons=0.5" rule either: if I wanted that, I can start playing Harm-master, with its different armour values for 5 different attacks. As for basing it on Str + Con rather than Siz + Con: one of the reasons I suggested this is to give an advantage to Size. I always thought that RQ had an advantage over other games when it came to handling Siz as a PC characteristic. Having rolled up a Siz 18 character for the first time a year ago, I have found that they actually went out of their way to penalize big characters, while making the advantages pretty small. In my current game, there is an elf in the party, Str 16 Con 16 Siz 9. On the old RQIII size equivalency table she weighs ~50 kg, vs my character's ~125 kg. Yet she is nearly as strong as my Str 18, Con 14, Siz 18 (obviously we've done a fair bit of training) Humakti, has a 1d4 damage bonus vs a 1d6 under RQIII, and has 13 hp vs 16, and has 1 less SR. Weighing 2.5 times as much seems to have very little combat advantages, but is given very strong disadvantages in the way of experience gains (crap stealth and agility bonuses), armour which weighs more without any corresponding strength advantage, and many situations in cramped circumstances. Everything I've seen and heard has indicated that Size is a very big advantage in combat, especially unarmed combat. I'm worried about this not because I want my character to be all destroying , but because RQ has added a Size charactistic and has then been pretty unrealistic in how it has used it. OK I'll admit it, I'm actually a raving powergaming munchkin on an ego trip. My character won't last forever though: he is a Humakti! :-) >| Of course I like the new Strike Rank table, since I'm the >| one that suggested it. However, I don't think Dex and Siz should >| both be limited to contributing 20; I think it should perhaps be >| more flexible. What I would prefer would be limiting the >| contribution of Siz to 25 and that of Dex to 30, but for >| simplicity's sake I could see limiting them both to 25. Yes, I agree with this: it helps the nonhuman creatures not to base SR completely around the huaman limits. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Graeme Lindsell Email: gal502@huxley.anu.edu.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA04815; Thu, 24 Jun 93 21:29:43 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA10266; Thu, 24 Jun 93 22:29:30 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Thu, 24 Jun 93 22:29:34 EDT From: jjm@zycor.lgc.com (johnjmedway) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: ARMOR & DAMAGE Date: Thu, 24 Jun 93 21:29:05 CDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <28D699C1F0E@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Something about armor that bugs me: >From each of Peloria and Fronela, take a plate-armored warrior. Hmm, the armor covers different locations, kinda, doesn't it. In the Fronelan, or for that matter any generic Western-type, the idea of _full_ plate coverage exists. For the Pelorians, it's more our Graeco-Roman style. It wouldn't be fair to the Lunar to give him 1/2 value, though, it's not realistic for his armor to be equivalent to the Fronelan. If the plate is in the right place, at the right time, it should give it's all (8 points), it's just not in all the right places. How about this for a quick & dirty dose of reality/patch to the system: For armor not covering an entire region, declare the partial armor to be 1/2 armor. The AP of the armor in each test are equal to a die roll, where the size of the die is the same as the maximum AP of the partial armor in question. The partial armor is in all other ways considered 1/2 of the normal armor (cost, ENC, move silently modifier, etc.). Examples: (for these, plate = 8, chain = 6, cuirboilli = 4) Demonstratios, a Fronelan nobleman in his full plate regalia Examplus, a Pelorian heavy Hoplite who wears a full plate helm, a plate cuirass, greaves (true greaves, not RQ greaves), vambraces (same note), and a cuirboilli skirt. Modelo, a barbarian in a open helm, and some metal plates on the chest (samnite or celtic style mini-breastplate), over leather-1 shirt and trousers. Location: Demonstratios Examplus Modelo ----------------------------------------------------------------- Head: 8 8 d8 Arms: 8 d8 1 Chest: 8 8 d8 + 1 Abdomen: 8 4 (skirt) 2 (overlap) Legs: 8 max ( d8 & d4 ) 1 The only messy occasions are such as Examplus' legs. The reason this is a problem is that there is really no way for these two partial armors to cover the same region. Either declare (for simplicity) the player only rolls for one of the partial armors, or that he may roll both, and take the higher (probably not worth the complication). A similar mechanism would also be applicable to the RQLite project. Where the armor could end up being treated similarly to Stormbringer-style armor. BTW: I still haven't had a chance to finish the RQ2-style armor table which I suggested. I'm too busy slaving away @ work & school, and I wanted to throw this idea out as well. And on a related note: >> From: burt@ptltd.com (Burton Choinski) >> Subject: COMMENTS, DAMAGE, ATTRIBUTES >> Date: Thu, 24 Jun 93 15:26:53 EDT >> >> Special Crush, Critical Slash, Critical Impale: >> Reduce effective armor by 1 AP per 5 points of STR (not less then 0 AP) >> Critical Crush: >> Reduce effective armor by 2 AP per 5 points of STR (not less then 0 AP) Or a more RQLite idea: simply halve the armor. There's no need to look up STR, and you'll still not greatly effect the mother of monsters et al. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | john_medway@zycor.lgc.com | Landmark Graphics Corp | 512.292.2325 | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA15082; Fri, 25 Jun 93 08:19:55 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA19461; Fri, 25 Jun 93 09:17:36 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Fri, 25 Jun 93 9:19:43 EDT From: burt@ptltd.com (Burton Choinski) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: COMMENTS, ATTRIBUTES Date: Fri, 25 Jun 93 09:13:59 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <29837196BF9@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Oliver replies: ------------------------------------------------------------ | Burton, that set of modifiers looks very close to the latest set of | modifiers. | | You use CON in a few places I'm not sure about - for manipulations, | INT seems more relevant than CON (DEX strikes me as what covers | hand-eye coordination, not CON). CON seems to more respresent | health, physical condition, resistance to disease and poison, Well, given that CON is heavily used for Perception, that seems to indicate it's use to determine clear eyes, good sense of touch, etc. I was just extending on this for the manipulation. It has the advantage of getting INT out of every attribute. Besides, I think I have a pretty good DEX myself, but don't ask me to do any detail work when I'm sick as a dog. :) -- Burton  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA21277; Fri, 25 Jun 93 10:48:45 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA26326; Fri, 25 Jun 93 11:48:22 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Fri, 25 Jun 93 11:48:31 EDT From: Anthony Ragan To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Strike ranks and resistance rolls Date: Fri, 25 Jun 93 08:42 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <29ABA8E169D@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> {Loren writes} Okay, that covers the complexity end of the scale. Now how about the other end, about skill vs skill and skill vs characteristic contests on a resistance table? Rewrite the resistance table as a single line that goes from -N to +N and below each number is a percentage value. Roll the percentage value or less, add the corresponding bonus or minus to your skill, and you can overcome that level of resisting skill or less. Multiply characteristics by 5 to get a motive or resistive skill level. Now you have a simple way of comparing skills and characteristics to use as a quick alternative to the round-oriented skill conflict rules. {I reply} I like this much better than your first suggestion....using strike ranks to calculate all sorts of conflict resolutions looks like too much bother to be worthwhile. Using the resistance table, however, is an elegant and natural solution that takes advantage of one of the great strengths of Chaosium's basic system. If you want to suggest a "Generalized Theory of Conflict Resolution for RQ," this seems to be the best way to do it. --Anthony ecz5rar@mvs.oac.ucla.edu IrishSpy@aol.com Rune Chia Pet of Ernalda  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA05152; Thu, 24 Jun 93 21:48:11 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA10542; Thu, 24 Jun 93 22:47:56 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Thu, 24 Jun 93 22:48:01 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: COMMENTS, DAMAGE, ATTRIBUTES + Natural Armour Date: Fri, 25 Jun 93 12:47:11 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <28DB7B30937@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Graeme here replying to Burton > > Anthony Ragan asks: > ------------------------------------------------------------ > | Well....since Nick and Curtis have already mentioned it....can we get > | rid of strike ranks? While the SR system is appealing in theory (an exact > ... > | calculate the melee SR as normal (based on the addition of SIZ + DEX, > | correct?) and use the melee SR as a modifier to a d10 roll. Low result > | (Melee SR +d10) goes first in the round. > I thought a SRless system for RQLite could be worked out by using greater Siz+Dex for going first in melee, Dex*2 in magic/missiles, and just counting down until dex+Siz = 2 is reached. Adding a d10 to each of them would introduce a fair random factor. > Other stuff... > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Yesterday I posted a revised damage table, based on d3's. > Back home I was looking at it and thought I had it wrong -- but looking at > it again, it actually makes more sense, since the average man (SIZ 13, > STR 11) has a bonus of +0. This lessened damage discards the need for > natural armor. > Why? I accept it discards the need for a Siz 13, Str 11 person to have no armour bonus, which is fine, since if armour bonus = damage bonus he doesn't. Without the armour bonus, that siz 10, str 11 wimp can still take out the Con+Siz 18 thug with 2 well chosen punches to the head. > > SPECIAL, CRITICAL hits: > of the time he does real damage, ignoring the huge amount of armor. Multiply > Willy by several hundred flying Orlanthi, who fly up, chop, and fly off. Watch the Mother roll over onto her back? Watch the birds picking Willy jelly off her back for a day or so? Continue for the next week or until the head falls off, whichever comes first. > > Now, I chose this extreme point to show how bogus the critical "ignore armor" > rule is. You can say "Well, realistically you can't ignore all that armor..." > No Kidding. > Well, realistically you won't see players fighting the Mother of Monsters. I never saw the need for giving the statistics for it as the RQ system breaks down for creatures on the heroic scale. I don't see the criticals as being a problem for the human scale opponents, and for giving a chance against such creatures as Dream Dragons. Personally, I thought a few descriptions of the big monsters, plus the information that an attack on them will either be ignored or be certain death would have been better. Who needs to know what Cwim can do to the average party? > > -- Burton Graeme  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA17453; Fri, 25 Jun 93 23:53:21 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA16320; Sat, 26 Jun 93 00:52:58 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Sat, 26 Jun 93 0:53:07 EDT From: gal502@huxley.anu.edu.au (Graeme Lindsell) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: SPIRIT MAGIC: Variable Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1993 14:53:32 -0600 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <2A7CEBA417D@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Variable Spirit Magic Graeme here again. There was some discussion on this list of making spirit magic less predictable in its effects. I think that something along these lines might be simple but workable, and I don't recall seeing anyone else post anything very similar: Spell Points Roll for Spell Strength 1 1 2 1d3 3 1d3 + 1 4 2d3 5 2d3 + 1 6 3d3 7 3d3 + 1 etc ie when a spell of the listed value is cast, the player or GM rolls the listed number of dice to determine the actual strength of the spell. The same rolls would be made for spells boosted with magic points:a Befuddle with 6 MP added would be a 4d3 strength spell for the purposes of penetrating defensive magic, and a base 2 point befuddleis at 1d3 for penetrating defenses I doubt very many spirit magic spells get big enough that rolling too many dice will get to be a problem. This system has the advantage that the average power of the spells is the same as under the current system, but introduces a fair random factor, which will stop actions like "My countermagic 4 will stop all Befuddles, Disrupts and Demoralizes that aren't boosted with magic points" or "This Coordination 2 will give me a SR of 1". The table is similar to Burton's recent damage bonus table, but 1 point isn't 1d3-1 since I think PC's should get something for the loss of an MP and a successful casting roll. Comments, Opinions, Flames... Graeme --------------------------------------------------------------------- Graeme Lindsell Email: gal502@huxley.anu.edu.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA19870; Mon, 28 Jun 93 17:11:05 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA07878; Mon, 28 Jun 93 15:58:27 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 28 Jun 93 15:58:22 EDT From: Anthony Ragan To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: re: SPIRIT MAGIC: Variable Date: Mon, 28 Jun 93 12:58 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <2E6E7F11283@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> In reference to Graeme's proposal for variable spirit magic: This seems to meet what're usually my main criteria -- that a system be simple and easy to use. But I wonder if this is a case of "fixing what ain't broke?" :) The spirit magic rules work fine for me the way they are written -- but maybe that's the wargamer in me talking. All other things being equal, I'd prefer to keep spirit magic mechanics the way they are now. --Anthony ecz5rar@mvs.oac.ucla.edu IrishSpy@aol.com Rune Chia Pet of Ernalda  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA10043; Tue, 29 Jun 93 09:17:07 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA29391; Tue, 29 Jun 93 10:16:06 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Tue, 29 Jun 93 10:16:15 EDT From: burt@ptltd.com (Burton Choinski) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: SORCERY Date: Tue, 29 Jun 93 10:12:21 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <2F933B05049@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Yes, it's another.... SORCERY SYSTEM Don't panic, it's not runic. :) I know the Oliver & Co. already have a Sorc system in the works, but I'd just thought I'd put up some thoughts I had on this "unified sorcery" system. Feel free to peel out anything useful. My personal thoughts on the results at the bottom. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sorcery, like the rune of Law, is built upon three parts -- Skills, Spells and Studies. Skills are the sculptor's hands of the Sorcerer, for the basic elements of magic are weak when formed. Sorcerous Skills include _Duration_, to support and sustain the magical matrix; _Intensity_, to reinforce the basic matrix for greater effect; _Range_, to extend the mystic reach of the Sorcerer; _Multispell_, to allow the sorcerer to combine effects of several spells. Spells are the fundementals of Sorcery, the underlying manipulation of natural forces. Each spell has it's own effect, but cannot operate alone. Studies determine the form, the path the magic will travel. Spells intertwine with studies to weave the axtual matrix which is manipulated by the skills. Each study must be learned and improved on it's own. GENERAL USE: Take the lower value of any spell, study or skills required as the chance of successfully casting the whole. Easy. :) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- STUDIES: Substance Studies: Bronze, Fire, Water, Iron, Wood, etc. Characteristic Studies: STR, DEX, CON, SIZ, APP, INT, POW, Location AP, Location HP Sense Studies: Sight, Smell, Touch, Hearing, Taste, Darksense, etc. Attribute Studies: Fatigue, Magic Points Runic Element Studies: (okay, so I lied ;) Light, Fire, Luck, Darkness, etc. Species Studies: One study per species Power Studies: Magic, Damage, Spirit ---------------------------------------------------------------------- SPELLS: Animate Form Sense Alter NEW Summon Dominate Bind Detect Shapechange to Genesis Make Familiar Diminish Enhance Tap Drain Fill Phantom Project Dim NEW Clear NEW Mystic Boost Resist Reflect Resist Neutralize Grasping Fleeting Conjure Banish ------------------------------------------------------------ Enchant is a general purpose spell used by the sorcerer to fix a spell for all time using bits of his or her own aura. Using enchant fixes the spell in place using 1 POW per intensity. Obviously, some spells are worthless unless enchanted (i.e. Genesis) since the results won't mature before the spell ends. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- CLASSIFIED SPELLS: The following spells are classified using the above system: Animate = Animate Armoring = Enhance w/Enchant Binding = Bind w/Enchant Cast Back = Reflect Create Basilisk = Genesis w/Enchant Create Familiar = Make Familiar w/Enchant Create Vampire = Genesis w/Enchant Damage Boosting = Boost Damage Resistance = Resist Diminish = Diminish Dominate = Dominate Drain = Drain Enhance = Enhance Fly = Grasping i.e. provides better traction with air. Form/Set = Form Glow = Conjure Haste = Grasping Hinder = Fleeting Magic Point Matrix = Fill w/Enchant Mystic Vision = Mystic Neutralize Magic = Neutralize Phantom = Phantom Projection = Project Sense = Sense Shapechange = Shapechange to Skin of Life = Conjure Smother = Banish Spell Resistance = Resist Spirit Resistance = Resist Strengthening = Enhance w/Enchant Summon = Summon Tap = Tap Unclassified Spells (at present): The following spells have not yet been classified: Apprentice Bonding Holdfast Homing Circle Immortality Palsy Protective Circle Regenerate Spell Matrix Stupifaction Telepathy Teleport Treat Wounds Venom ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes: This "unified theory" system is anything but complete, if you feel the above "unclassified" spells must be added. They might fit in just as well as "stand-alone" spells that have their studies built in. The above provides a logical track for creating new spells. For example, I figured "Fly" simply added to one's movement ability in air. Since most people don't skid too well on clouds, the normal move is 0. So the "Fly" skill "adds" to the "speed" of one when interacting with air. So, when cast on a flying creature it would allow them to fly faster. Extending this to another element, say earth, one could create the sorcery equal of mobility. Smother is a tricky one that could be done in several ways. You could Banish centered on the target's head, or you could Conjure to drown them (though this requires Form/Set as well so that you could keep it's form about the head. Some spells become immensely more powerful, however. Joe Wizard could just put a Banish about your head for a few hours, just to be sure. I would say that in the case of direct harm to the target, duration is measured in melee rounds instead of 10-minute periods. Thus one could conjure up a fire ball on some pour shmuck's armor and roast him. The generic "Enchant for Permanence" is an interesting concept. It allows permanent effects much like one might read in High-fantasy stories. One could Stick an intensity 1 Conjure with an enchant on a stick and make a perpetual torch. :) "Spell Matrix" might fit well as a "final condition"...you could cast the spell, or add the Spell matrix condition and Enchant to store it away. Several NEW spells fell out of the ordering when I was working this up. ALTER is what is used to enchant things like Iron or Quicksilver. Unless the Enchantment is put in, these alterations are temporary. DIM reduces the sense by 5% per intensity, CLEAR adds 5%. TAP is an odd spell. In RQ3 it is NOT an enchantment...you just cast it like any other spell. But the effects are permanent. In this unified form, the tapped points return to the user at the rate of 1 every time interval once the duration of the TAP ends. MP gained by the Tap dissapate if not used. This interval is a number of minutes equal to the Intensity required. Thus, 1 point of INT would return every 5 minutes. Throwing a high level Fleeting on someone is nasty...they are nearly frictionless on the ground and cannot move or stand. Fleeting , cast on a sailed ship actually has the same result as Grasping cast on the sails. Assuming you could protect yourself from it, casting a Grasping would allow you to climb flames, but the footing is very tricky. :) -- Burton