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 AA24722; Thu, 1 Jul 93 02:50:47 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA06093; Thu, 1 Jul 93 03:50:11 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Thu, 1 Jul 93 3:50:17 EDT From: davidc@cs.uwa.edu.au (David Cake) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Sorcery with studies Date: Thu, 1 Jul 93 15:49:05 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <322C60B4861@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> I really like the basic concept behind Burtons sorcery system, with studies as well as skills and spells (though I think that calling studies skills is actually quite fine). In fact I was going to do something like this myself, but Burton beat me too it. I have a few minor problems with it (I am happy for some spells to remain ungeneralised, and I think that some of the Studies are somwhat redundant (like Attribute studies, I'd rather that these spells remain separate spells rather than variants)), but overall I like it, and would be happy for RQ Sorcery to take this form. It is reminescent of Ars Magica and Chivalry and Sorcery, but without immense complexity. What I would like to know, before I try to rewrite it etc., is how do others on the list feel about it (either like or dislike), and how do Oliver and the gang feel about it? try to concentrate on generalities rather than specifics. Cheers, Dave Cake  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA26595; Thu, 1 Jul 93 20:52:12 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA06502; Thu, 1 Jul 93 21:51:59 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Thu, 1 Jul 93 21:51:39 EDT From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Sorcery with studies Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1993 17:25:46 MEZ Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <334CEBE7ACF@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> In <322C60B4861@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu>, Dave Cake writes: > I really like the basic concept behind Burtons sorcery system, with >studies as well as skills and spells (though I think that calling studies skills >is actually quite fine). In fact I was going to do something like this myself, >but Burton beat me too it. Studies is quite a ggod word for it. I was thinking of something like "name lore" when I toyed with this idea, like everyone/thing having its own true name, and the study/skill represents how close the sorcerer came to it. The closer he comes, the better are his chances. > I have a few minor problems with it (I am happy for some spells to >remain ungeneralised, and I think that some of the Studies are somwhat >redundant (like Attribute studies, I'd rather that these spells remain separate >spells rather than variants)), but overall I like it, and would be happy for >RQ Sorcery to take this form. It is reminescent of Ars Magica and Chivalry and >Sorcery, but without immense complexity. >From the power balance point of view, you are right about the attribute spells being different spells, but for the sake of simplicity, I'd throw them in with the other spells. > What I would like to know, before I try to rewrite it etc., is how do >others on the list feel about it (either like or dislike), and how do Oliver >and the gang feel about it? try to concentrate on generalities rather than >specifics. As you might see from my answer, I support this for a generalized system for certain spell effects. I have no problem with specific spells sewn together from this taught to lesser pupils, such as Paul Reilly's Hrestoli spells in the Dailies, and certainly there would be restrictions as to who teaches or knows which studies, varying from sect to college. I'd propose that one can alternatively learn a certain combination of manipulation plus spell plus study as one new spell with fixed costs, which would be the way these are taught to students, or that one can take the expert way and make up the combinations as one wants. In the latter case manipulation limits are easy to calculate, and in the former one could think of some easy to handle restrictions, such as "no manipulation greater than teacher's instruct skill divided by ten allowed". This ought to hold power levels down. My DM 0.02 -- Joerg Baumgartner rq4@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA14219; Thu, 1 Jul 93 14:05:03 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25728; Thu, 1 Jul 93 15:04:41 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Thu, 1 Jul 93 15:04:31 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Maintenance Date: Thu, 1 Jul 93 15:03:09 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <32E04DB0720@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Paul R. here. What happened to all the volume on this list? I'm not complaining, my mailer can use the rest, but I am surprised. Do people think a rule like the following would be good, or is this so obvious as to need no mention in the rules: A basic 30% Craft skill and simple tools are considered sufficient to maintain ordinary cultural equipment in good working order while away from shops, etc. For example, a knight on the road who has 30% Craft: Armoring (or has a squire with this skill), such tools as a hammer, whetstone, etc. and a small supply of rivets and strapping leather may be assumed to maintain ordinary cultural armor and weapons in working condition (barring major damage as for example by acid) indefinitely, with no skill roll. With 60% skill in a Craft, equipment at the top end of the range for the culture may be maintained. With 90% skill, imported equipment somewhat beyond the cultural level of the crafter may also be maintained indefinitely. Things which are in use and fail to receive proper maintenance will begin to decay. In the case of armor, rivets pop, straps moulder, etc. The GM must apply common sense to assess how fast different things will wear down - for example, a sealed Mostali timepiece might last indefinitely (but be impossible for humans to repair if broken through abuse), a watermill might last for a few years, poorly maintained tournament armor will last for a year or two. Poorly maintained equipment usually results in a penalty to the skill of the user in the early stages and may break down completely later on. Skilled craftsmen may be able to repair and refurbish such equipment at a moderate cost.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA18975; Thu, 1 Jul 93 16:06:18 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA00291; Thu, 1 Jul 93 17:05:49 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Thu, 1 Jul 93 17:05:46 EDT From: David Cheng To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: What does a n% skill really mean? Date: Thu, 1 Jul 93 17:05:12 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <33009B96053@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> DC finally sneaks in a reply. I'm reading everything; there's just no time to fully speak my mind... Paul Reilly suggests for craft skills that certain levels (30%/60%/90%) impart given benefits. The idea that a certain level in a skill "guarantees" a certain result has been kicked around here before. I remember Loren Miller having a system I particularly liked. (Come to think of it, I believe the discussion happened on r.g.f.misc, not this mailer...) Personally, I think the idea has a lot going for it. What holds me back from wholeheartedly embracing it is pure fear of the unknown: "It's just so different from the way we do it now..." One other drawback is the idea of 'breakpoints' that we have all (legitimately) come to dread. "Last week I was at 89%. I gained 2% from experience, so now I can maintain foreign equipment without a roll. I couldn't at 89%, but at 90%+ I'm golden..." (Hmmm... sounds like a certain taboo RPG...) The idea has a lot of face validity. Let's take something simple like Dancing. It makes a lot of sense that 25% dance means you've got the basics down, but are not terribly graceful. 50% means you've very comfortable. 85% means you are so good that others derive enjoyment from watching you. * All without a roll.* It does not make as much sense to say: A has Dance 15%, and gets a lucky special. B has Dance 75%, and gets a normal failure. Thus: A wow's the crowd, whereas B trips and falls... The complexity really sneaks in when you've got opposed skill rolls, especially combat. How to handle it? I dunno... -David Cheng drcheng@sales.stern.nyu.edu * Still not too late to get RQ-Con events into the pre-reg!  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA19522; Thu, 1 Jul 93 16:17:03 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA00717; Thu, 1 Jul 93 17:16:46 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Thu, 1 Jul 93 17:16:27 EDT From: JOVANOVIC@CUCCFA.CCC.COLUMBIA.EDU To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: RE: What does a n% skill really mean? Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1993 17:18:47 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <33038DE6995@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Actually, after tossing something like this around for Craft/Farming in Dorastor, we may have a new mechanic that addresses this question (what craft skills really mean), without the extreme breakpoint problems some of the other proposals have. I'll try to get it up in a day or two, after I get the RQIV survey I'm currently working on out. Oliver  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA20862; Thu, 1 Jul 93 16:49:55 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01793; Thu, 1 Jul 93 17:49:43 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Thu, 1 Jul 93 17:49:24 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: What does a n% skill really mean? Date: Thu, 1 Jul 93 17:48:10 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <330C4D322F5@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> On extended tasks like maintaining armor or other equipment, just looking at the skill level makes a lot of sense. Do you really want to roll Armoring x 3 every time you fix a rivet? Obviously for some tasks you are averaging over the results of hundreds of rolls, thus a straight skill level is appropriate. (There are some examples of this in RQ III, like scribing the runes of Enchantment.) In our campaign we use opposed tests of skill like those in Pendragon (as I've described before.) An additional rule sometimes used is that you can boost your _chance_ of success by only trying for a low level of success. It works like this (feel free to refine & improve this if you like): Tasks are categorized according to success levels. The standard Sartar Harvest Dance might be very easy, a successful performance is any Normal 10 or better. A man with a 50% Dance skill who wishes to stay out of the spotlight can go for only the basic success level (giving up any chance of a special or critical), which is Normal 10. His skill is 50%, the difference between the success level he is trying for and his skiill is 40%, so he gets a 40% bonus. He has a 90% chance of achieving that Normal 10 level of success, and cannot critical or special. His success level is a Normal 10. He will only fumble on a 00% (based on his boosted % chance), reflecting the fact that he isn't trying any fancy moves. Another example: Say turning out good spearpoints takes a Normal 50 on Armory skill. A weaponsmith with a 75% skill can choose to turn out normal standard spearpoints with this level of success virtually guaranteed, (5% chance of autofailure) but will not special or crit. If he wants to try to make a really good spearhead (a la Dragonslayer) he does his usual roll and hopes for a high success level or a crit. This system may need tweaking on some numbers but the basic idea is sound: a competent person can choose to do something easy. I don't know if such a system is needed or not, but would like to hear what others think. - Paul  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA21037; Thu, 1 Jul 93 16:54:47 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01949; Thu, 1 Jul 93 17:54:31 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Thu, 1 Jul 93 17:54:10 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: RE: What does a n% skill really mean? Date: Thu, 1 Jul 93 17:52:56 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <330D94028AE@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Oliver writes: >extreme breakpoint I agree, this is to be avoided. The 30%, 60%, etc. was something we used as a guideline in our own campaign rather than a rigid rule. See also my last message on a more flexible and less discrete system. One thing about Crafts is that you often don't want to be rolling many individual rolls, nor do you want to roll once for say a month's output (unless it is one big complicated project). I will be interested to see the new proposal. - Paul  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from cuccfa.ccc.columbia.edu by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA23198; Thu, 1 Jul 93 18:19:25 -0500 Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1993 19:16:31 -0400 (EDT) From: JOVANOVIC@CUCCFA.CCC.COLUMBIA.EDU Message-Id: <930701191631.b806@CUCCFA.CCC.COLUMBIA.EDU> Subject: RQIV Survey (Damage) To: mcwalla@algol.cs.umbc.edu, LOREN@wmkt.wharton.upenn.edu, tsl@cs.mu.OZ.AU, mab@batman.b11.ingr.com, johnston@heart.enet.dec.com, Henk.Langeveld@Holland.Sun.COM, danielq@sfsuvax1.sfsu.edu, gharris@Jade.Tufts.EDU, trystro!rune@Think.COM, gadbois@CS.UTEXAS.EDU, qed!shadow@netcom.com, kychan@ocf.Berkeley.EDU, okamoto@hpcc90.corp.hp.com, fencing+@andrew.cmu.edu, alex@dcs.gla.ac.uk, rollin@EQL.Caltech.Edu, marks@slough.mit.edu, drcheng@sales.stern.nyu.edu, T.S.Baguley@open.ac.uk, scn/G=Neil/I=NA/S=Harold/O=Siemens_plc/OU=Congleton@mhs.attmail.com, gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au, mcg@halcyon.halcyon.com, brouille@shasta.Stanford.EDU, Michael.Norrish@comp.vuw.ac.nz, b_kondalski@vssi.trw.com, Klaus.Moeller@arbi.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de@gimli.Informatik.Uni-Oldenburg.DE <@gimli.Informatik.Uni-Oldenburg.DE:Klaus.Moeller@arbi.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de>, timp@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU, mks.com!viktor@mks.com, mc@cp.dias.ie@andromeda.cp.dias.ie <@andromeda.cp.dias.ie:mc@cp.dias.ie>, jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu, Henry.C.Schmitt@EIGER.EDRC.CMU.EDU, Benedikt_Heinen@firemark.fido.de, doane@lick.UCSC.EDU, markg@engrg.uwo.ca, runelord%nacjack.gen.nz@kcbbs.gen.nz, JARDINE@RMCS.CRANFIELD.AC.UK, jmedway@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu, clay@morticia.cnns.unt.edu, brandon@ncbi.nlm.nih.gov, jeff@cotopaxi.Stanford.EDU, bell@cs.unc.edu, SPB1@vms.bton.ac.uk, lro@melb.bull.oz.au, jason@insignia.uucp, davidc@wambenger.cs.uwa.edu.au, ade@insignia.uucp, sma@informatik.uni-kiel.dbp.de, rog@insignia.uucp, LAIDLAW@draco.rutgers.edu, hhcs.gov.au!langsl@hhcs.gov.au, MAB@sa750.rl.ac.uk, ECZ5RAR@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU <@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU:ECZ5RAR@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU>, tzunder@cix.compulink.co.uk, mace@lum.asd.sgi.com, DO9EA00@sysa.computing-services.manchester-metropolitan-university.ac.uk, Pearton@unpsun1.cc.unp.ac.za, ROBERTSON@delphi.intel.com, appel@erzo.berkeley.edu, bauge@nucdec.chem.sunysb.edu, ARC.UG.EDS.COM!STEVEG@UG.EDS.COM, kokko@hskprf.enet.dec.com, timp@extra.ucc.su.OZ.AU, WALLMAN@VAX2.Winona.MSUS.EDU, resmith@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu, pound@ruf.rice.edu, werewolf@vnet.IBM.COM, burt@ptltd.com, jgd@cix.compulink.co.uk, paul@phyast.pitt.edu, justin_cann@netmail.washcoll.edu, curtiss@netcom.com, CONEJ@lan.lincoln.cri.nz, f6ri@midway.uchicago.edu, staats@MIT.EDU, peterw@computer-science.manchester.ac.uk, nrobinso@sirius.UVic.CA, DScott@snail.demon.co.uk, imlac@acs.bu.edu, maf1@crux3.cit.cornell.edu, pelwer@ptdcs2.intel.com, awr0@aber.ac.uk, venturi@cs.unibo.it, flammang@heart.med.uth.tmc.edu, rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Vmsmail-To: @RQIV.INET RQIV Damage Bonus, Weapon Damage, Armor and Hit Location Proposals [This document has been sent to those of you with Internet access that have expressed an interest in playtesting RQIV. To display the document correctly, use a monospaced font and a display mode that will give you at least 80 characters on a line. If you do not wish to receive any further such mailings, please let us know, and we will remove you from the mailing list.] The following document contains a number of proposed changes to the RQ damage system (a number of which based on comments from various playtesters). Since this particular set of changes would result in a significant change from the current rules, we are very interested in getting your feedback on whether you think they would be worth implementing. To give you some background, these changes were made in response to a number of comments on the RQIII damage system. The comments included complaints regarding the sudden jumps in the damage bonus table, and the odd mathematical progression of the current damage bonus table. The other major set of complaints had to do with the extreme amounts of damage RQIII weapons did. Essentially, given the ease of achieving a 1D4 damage bonus in RQIII (since an average human in RQIII has 13 SIZ, and would need but a 12 STR to obtain a 1D4 damage bonus) and the damage done by weapons, most weapons, even daggers, would incapacitate whatever location they struck on an average or above average (12-13 HP) human. An average dagger blow (1D4+2+1D4, or 7 points of damage) would sever or irrevocably maim the arm of an average human (with 3 HP arms). The weakest possible blow (4 points of damage) would automatically render the arm useless - there is no chance of a light wound occuring. A second set of comments came from a number of people that found keeping track of two hit location tables (Melee and Missile/Spell) an unnecessary complication. To address the first of these issues, we have developed and tested a series of changes to damage bonus, weapon damage and AP values for parry armor and armor. Damage bonus is smoother, has far less extreme breakpoints, and is much easier to apply. Weapon damage was reduced and simplified slightly (for the most part, by simply removing any adds to weapon dice, that is a 1D8+1 Broadsword would now do 1D8 damage). This makes rolling weapon damage faster and simpler (particularly useful for GMs), since now the GM generally need only roll 1D8+2, to calculate weapon and damage bonus damage, as opposed to RQIII, where a typical damage roll would be 1D8+1+1D4. The weapon die roll still retains a strong random element with respect to the amount of damage done - so one can still land a weak blow or a solid blow. However, since the total amount of damage done is slightly reduced by these changes, the results of weapon damage now seem slightly more realistic - a good dagger blow might well render an arm useless, but would not on the average sever or irrevocably maim the arm. A weak dagger blow might leave the arm still functional. Heavier weapons have more serious effects, but in general weapon damage seems to have a more realistic set of effects, and is simpler to calculate than in RQIII. To compensate for the slight decrease in weapon damage, weapon parry AP and armor AP were slightly reduced - typically by 2 AP - which brings armor values back in line with RQ2 values, for those of you familiar with RQ2. To address the second issue, we have a single hit location chart which combines the melee and missile hit location charts. Using the melee chart or missile/spell chart alone to cover both types of actions seemed unrealistic (if using the melee chart alone, spells and missiles tend to hit the legs most often, and the abdomen or chest very rarely, which seems unreasonable; if using the missile chart alone, head hits seemed too infrequent, and chest hits too frequent). Although we feel that both of these changes address some of the comments we've received and are improvements on the current set of rules, we're not sure whether people currently playing RQ2 or RQIII feel that their advantages outweigh their disadvantages, namely that they would force conversion of PC and NPC damage bonus and weapon damage statistics in current RQIII games and in published RQIII scenarios. Thus the reason for the distribution of this document - following the rules changes described below is a simple two question survey. We would greatly appreciate receiving your responses to the survey. Thank you, Oliver Jovanovic DAMAGE BONUS Damage Min. Avg. STR+SIZ Bonus STR+SIZ 1-5 -4 1 6-10 -3 3 11-25 -2 6 16-20 -1 8 21-25 0 11 26-30 +1 13 31-35 +2 16 36-40 +3 18 41-45 +4 21 46-50 +5 23 51-55 +6 26 56-60 +7 28 Each +5 add 1 Footnote to Damage Bonus Table Damage bonus for large creatures (or any creature) can be simply calculated by dividing the creatures STR+SIZ by 5, rounding up, and subtracting 5. [This set of changes is meant to smooth out the progression of the damage bonus, eliminate the extreme breakpoints, and simplify and speed the calculation of damage. The progression at higher levels is very similar to RQIII (1D6 per 16 points, or 3.5 per 16 points in RQIII, vs. 3 per 15 points or 3.2 per 16 points).] MELEE WEAPONS Damage AP A% P% SR ENC STR DEX Cost Notes 1H Swinging 1H Axe Hatchet 1d6 6 15 10 2 0.5 5 9 10 Battleaxe 1d8 8 10 5 2 1 7 9 50 1H Dagger Knife 1d3 3 15 10 3 0.2 0 0 5 Easy Dagger 1d4 4 15 10 3 0.5 0 0 15 Easy Main Gauche 1d4 6 10 15 3 1 0 9 50 Easy 1H Flail Grain Flail 1d6 4 10 5 2 1 7 9 5 (vs. 3/4 Def) War Flail 1d8 6 5 5 2 2 9 11 100 (vs. 3/4 Def) 1H Mace Singlestick 1d4 4 15 10 2 0.5 7 7 3 Light Mace 1d6 6 15 5 2 1 9 7 25 Heavy Mace 1d8 8 15 5 2 2.5 13 7 40 1H Hammer Warhammer 2d4 6 15 5 2 2 9 9 60 1H Sword Shortsword 1d6 6 15 10 2 1 7 7 40 Sickle 2d3 5 10 10 2 1 7 9 30 Scimitar 2d4 8 10 10 2 1.5 7 9 60 Broadsword 1d8 8 10 10 2 1.5 9 7 60 Bastard Sword 1d8 9 10 10 2 2 13 7 125 1H Thrusting 1H Dagger Knife 1d4 3 15 10 3 0.2 0 0 5 Easy Dagger 1d4 4 15 10 2 0.5 0 0 15 Easy Main Gauche 1d4 6 10 15 2 1 0 9 50 Easy 1H Spear Javelin 1d4 4 10 5 2 1.5 5 7 30 Spear 1d6 6 10 5 2 2 7 7 15 Heavy Spear 1d8 8 10 5 2 2.5 9 7 30 1H Sword Shortsword 1d4 6 15 10 2 1 5 7 40 Scimitar 2d3 8 10 10 2 1.5 5 9 60 Broadsword 1d6 8 10 10 2 1.5 7 7 60 Lance Lance 1d10 8 5 5 0 3.5 7 7 75 2H Swinging 2H Axe Battleaxe 1d10 8 5 5 2 1 7 9 50 Scythe 1d10 6 10 10 1 2.5 9 9 10 Greataxe 2d6 8 10 10 1 2 13 9 75 Poleaxe 2d6 8 5 10 1 2.5 13 9 125 2H Flail Military Flail 1d10 8 5 5 1 2.5 13 11 120 (vs. 3/4 Def) 2H Mace Quarterstaff 1d8 8 10 15 1 1.5 9 7 5 Heavy Mace 1d10 8 10 10 2 2.5 13 7 40 War Maul 2d6 9 10 10 1 3 13 9 50 Troll Maul 2d8 10 10 10 1 5 17 7 50 2H Hammer Great Hammer 1d10 8 10 10 1 2.5 11 9 100 2H Sword Swordstick 1d10 8 10 15 1 2 7 13 75 Bastard Sword 1d10 9 10 10 2 2 13 7 125 Great Sword 2d6 9 10 5 1 3.5 11 13 250 2H Thrusting 2H Spear Javelin 1d6 4 15 15 2 1.5 5 7 30 Spear 1d8 6 15 15 1 2 9 7 15 Heavy Spear 1d10 8 15 15 1 2.5 11 7 30 Pike 1d10 10 15 5 0 3.5 11 7 50 2H Sword Swordstick 1d8 8 5 15 1 2 7 13 75 Great Sword 1d10 9 5 5 1 3.5 11 13 250 Fist Fist Fist 1d3 3 30 30 3 0 0 0 NA Easy Cestus +1 5 30 30 3 1 9 0 25 Easy Claw 1d4 5 15 15 3 1 7 9 50 Easy Kick Kick 1d4 3 15 5 3 0 0 0 NA Grapple Grapple 1d4 3 30 30 3 0 0 0 NA MISSILE WEAPONS Damage AP A% P% ENC(m) STR DEX Cost Notes Blowgun Blowgun 1d3 2 5 5 .5(.05) 0 9 25 Easy Bow Short Bow 1d6 3 5 5 .5(.05) 9 9 75 4 Nomad Bow 1d8 4 5 5 .5(.05) 13 9 200 5 Crossbow Light Crossbow 1d6 4 30 5 3.5(.05) 9 7 100 Easy Med. Crossbow 1d8 5 30 5 5(.05) 11 7 200 Easy Heavy Crossbow 1d10 6 30 5 8(.05) 13 7 300 Easy Javelin Dart 1d6 3 15 5 0.5 7 9 15 Javelin 1d8 4 15 5 1.5 9 9 30 Ataltl +2 4 5 5 0.5 7 9 15 Launcher Lasso Rope Special NA 5 NA 1 9 11 75 Pole Special 4 15 5 3 9 9 50 Sling Sling Stone 1d6 NA 5 NA .1(.05) 5 11 NA Sling Bullet 1d8 NA 5 NA .1(.1) 5 11 0.1 Staff Sling Stone 1d8 4 15 5 1.5(.1) 7 9 NA Bullet 1d10 4 15 5 1.5(.2) 7 9 0.5 Throw Rock 1d3 NA 15 NA 0.5 5 11 NA Easy Thrown Axe Throwing Axe 1d6 5 15 5 0.5 9 11 40 Thrown Knife Throwing Knife 1d4 4 5 5 0.2 5 11 40 Shuriken 1d3 NA 5 NA 0.1 0 13 10 SHIELDS Damage AP A% P% SR ENC STR DEX Cost Notes Small 1d3 8 5 15 3 2 5 7 50 Assumes wood. Medium 1d4 10 5 20 3 4 7 7 75 Leather: -1 AP Large 1d6 12 5 25 3 6 9 7 100 and 1/2 cost Bronze: +1 AP and 2x cost Footnotes for Melee Weapon, Missile Weapon and Shield Tables Using a 1H weapon 2H adds 2 to effective STR. Can trade excess STR for DEX, 2 to 1 to meet DEX minimum. For each point of STR or DEX below weapon minimum, -10 to skill. [This set of changes is meant to bring weapon damage to slightly more realistic levels, at the same time simplifying and speeding the calculation of weapon damage by simplifying the number and kind of dice rolled. Weapon AP have been adjusted to take into account the slightly reduced damage done by weapons.] ARMOR Area Protected Type Material AP ENC Cost Legs Greaves Leather 1 1 15 Heavy Leather 2 2 20 Cuirboilli 3 2 40 Bronze Scale 5 9 125 Bronze 6 7 600 Trews Leather 1 1 15 Bronze Ringmail 4 3.5 70 Bronze Brigandine 5 8 150 Bronze Chainmail 5 7 300 Abdomen Skirts Leather 1 .5 5 Heavy Leather 2 1 10 Linen 3 2 8 Bronze Scale 5 4 50 Bronze Chainmail 5 3 120 Chest Byrnie Leather 1 .5 8 Heavy Leather 2 1 12 Bronze Ringmail 4 2 40 Bronze Chainmail 5 4 160 Curiass Linen 3 2 12 Cuirboilli 3 1 24 Bronze Brigandine 5 4.5 90 Bronze Scale 5 5 70 Bronze 6 4 320 Doublet Bronze Chainmail 6 6 240 Abdomen and Chest Hauberk Leather 1 1 15 Heavy Leather 2 2 20 Linen 3 3.5 20 Bronze Ringmail 4 3.5 70 Bronze Brigandine 5 8 150 Bronze Scale 5 9 130 Bronze Chainmail 5 7 280 Arms Sleeves Leather 1 .5 8 Bronze Ringmail 4 2 40 Bronze Chainmail 5 4 160 Vambraces Heavy Leather 2 1 12 Cuirboilli 3 1 24 Bronze Brigandine 5 4.5 90 Bronze Scale 5 5 70 Bronze 6 4 320 Head Hood Leather 1 .5 4 Bronze Ringmail 4 2 20 Bronze Chainmail 5 4 80 Open Heavy Leather 1 1 6 Helm Cuirboilli 2 1 12 Bronze Scale 4 4 30 Bronze 5 3 120 Closed Bronze Scale 5 5 35 Helm Bronze 6 4 160 Footnotes for Armor Table Cuirboilli, Bronze Ringmail, Bronze Brigandine, Bronze Scale, Bronze Chainmail and Bronze Plate armor has padding already taken into account in its AP and ENC values. Overlapping armor has little effect normally - if the lighter of the overlapping armors has at least 3 AP, add 1 AP to value of the heavier armor, but make sure to count the full ENC of the overlapping armor. Two pieces of hard armor (greaves, curiass, vambraces, open or closed helm) may not be overlapped. Armor must be properly designed to take full advantage of overlaps, and most Gloranthan cultures do not have the level of technology to do so. More advanced forms of armor exist in the advanced cultures of the West and among the Mostali. These include bronze platemail (7 AP, 30 ENC and 3000L for a full suit) and bronze full plate armor (8 AP, 25 ENC and 7000L for a full suit). They are not normally available in other parts of Glorantha. [These armor values are slighly reduced to take into account the slight reduction in weapon values, bringing them in line with RQ2 armor values.] HIT LOCATION TABLE Melee, Missile and Spell Hit Location Table for Humans and Humanoids D20 Location Description 19-20 Head Neck and head 16-18 Left Arm Entire left arm and shoulder 13-15 Right Arm Entire right arm and shoulder 11-12 Chest Rib cage and collarbone 07-10 Abdomen Groin to just under the rib cage 04-06 Left Leg Left leg from foot to groin level 01-03 Right Leg Right leg from foot to groin level Footnote to Hit Location Table The table is laid out so that one can roll 1D10 for blows from below, and 1D10+10 for blows from above. [A single table, which should speed and simplify the rolling of hit locations. The table is also laid out to make it easy to remember - splitting the body in half (abdomen/chest) along the die half (10/11). A similar merging of melee and missile hit location tables would occur with non-humans.] SURVEY 1) In your opinion, are the proposed changes to damage bonus, weapon damage and armor values worth making? Yes/No (For the purposes of this survey, please answer the above question taking the whole of the changes to damage into account - if you particularly like or dislike one or more of the changes, feel free to append this to your answer.) 2) In your opinion, is the proposed change of using a single merged hit location table worth making? Yes/No Please email your responses to: jovanovic@cuccfa.ccc.columbia.edu Feel free to simply reply: 1) Yes (or No) 2) No (or Yes) Thanks again, Oliver Jovanovic  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA25719; Thu, 1 Jul 93 20:06:34 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA05755; Thu, 1 Jul 93 21:06:14 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Thu, 1 Jul 93 21:05:57 EDT From: burt@ptltd.com (Burton Choinski) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: COMMENTS Date: Thu, 1 Jul 93 21:02:26 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <3340B24569B@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Graeme Lindsell provides a variable spirit spell table... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- | Spell Points Roll for Spell Strength | 1 1 | 2 1d3 | 3 1d3 + 1 | 4 2d3 | 5 2d3 + 1 | 6 3d3 | 7 3d3 + 1 | etc Might be interesting to try. I'll give it talking over at the next game. On the last game my 1d3 damage bonus was boo-ed down as too wimpy. Ach vell. But we had some bouts with the spirit combat system (the crew decided to pick though Burntwall). We ran it as sort of like normal combat (A successful defend knocks a special hit to a normal hit). I know it's not the way as listed, but having two different combat systems is hard to get used to (Witness Space: 1889 -- COMPLETELY different way of doing hand-to-hand and ranged combat -- it was very tricky). | 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. The plus fits better here anyways...easier to remember as being "divide MP by 2 for dice, add one on odd numbers". David Cheng sneaks in...:) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- | DC finally sneaks in a reply. I'm reading everything; there's just no | time to fully speak my mind... Haven't we all? The playtest list has been a tad light. :p | Paul Reilly suggests for craft skills that certain levels (30%/60%/90%) | impart given benefits. | | The idea that a certain level in a skill "guarantees" a certain result | has been kicked around here before. I remember Loren Miller having | a system I particularly liked. (Come to think of it, I believe the | discussion happened on r.g.f.misc, not this mailer...) It has merit...It's just tough to do without the breakpoint stigma as David mentions. | It does not make as much sense to say: | A has Dance 15%, and gets a lucky special. | B has Dance 75%, and gets a normal failure. | | Thus: A wow's the crowd, whereas B trips and falls... Make an entertainment table...Base index=Skill/10 (round down). Fumble = 0 Failure = 1/2 index (round down) Success = index Special = 2x index Critical = 5x index Low index values have bad things, like getting thrown out on your ear, pelted with fruit, etc. High ones get the big money. Actually, something like this might work well for gambling... Make a Gambling skill roll and determine the index for everyone. You win that amount in lunars or clacks (depending on the "richness" of the game) from each player in the game. If you roll low, and everyone else rolls high, prepare to be cleaned out. :) Map notes... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Well, after a bit of tweaking my map is coming along. What I have done is scanned the maps in the Genertala book at 300dpi, cleaned out the cities, names, etc from the bitmap tpo leave only geographical objects (rivers and coasts, mountains, forests, areas of the ban, swamps, etc. I then take this bitmap and bring it into Canvas and have it "Autotrace" the bitmap, which produces line objects. I then go about joining and tweaking these objects, setting the proper colors, etc. I try to shortcut where I can, to cur down on overall complexity. At present, I have west and east Fronela and Seshnela linked together. Once the whole terrain map is done I plan to submit the sucker to Oliver and crew so they can check it out and point out any thing I missed. -- Burton  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA25992; Thu, 1 Jul 93 20:16:11 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA05891; Thu, 1 Jul 93 21:15:58 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Thu, 1 Jul 93 21:15:38 EDT From: jjm@zycor.lgc.com (johnjmedway) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: maps Date: Thu, 1 Jul 93 20:15:26 CDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <33434A9070C@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> >> Map notes... >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Well, after a bit of tweaking my map is coming along. What I have done >> is scanned the maps in the Genertala book at 300dpi, cleaned out the cities, ahem. (just kidding) >> ... >> >> At present, I have west and east Fronela and Seshnela linked together. Once >> the whole terrain map is done I plan to submit the sucker to Oliver and >> crew so they can check it out and point out any thing I missed. hrrumpf. I would have rathered the center sections first (lunar empire/ maniria/wastes ). Let me know when you've got that done. I'd like to see what you have so far, though I'd have little use for that region. Actually, have you traced all of the pieces yet? I could start working on the central regions, in that case. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 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 AA26382; Thu, 1 Jul 93 20:40:46 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA06308; Thu, 1 Jul 93 21:40:33 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Thu, 1 Jul 93 21:40:13 EDT From: burt@ptltd.com (Burton Choinski) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: maps Date: Thu, 1 Jul 93 21:36:46 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <3349D7C166E@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Well, I was considering the central section first, I decided to train myself with the hairy coastline first. In joining the Seshnela and Eastern Fronela maps I noticed there were some differences in the objects (big suprise :) I'll see if I can Binhex the Canvas map at present and get it to you, John. I have been scanning and tracing as I have been going along. If people want I can put the current map on soda so you all can peek at it right now. I thought you had Canvas, John? -- Burton  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA03765; Fri, 2 Jul 93 04:56:43 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA12249; Fri, 2 Jul 93 05:56:14 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Fri, 2 Jul 93 5:56:10 EDT From: Henk.Langeveld@Holland.Sun.COM (Henk Langeveld - Sun Nederland) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: What does a n% skill really mean? Date: Fri, 2 Jul 93 11:55:49 +0200 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <33CE14A0490@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> In the playtest list you write: >DC finally sneaks in a reply. I'm reading everything; there's just no >time to fully speak my mind... Know the feeling. >Paul Reilly suggests for craft skills that certain levels (30%/60%/90%) >impart given benefits. >The idea that a certain level in a skill "guarantees" a certain result >has been kicked around here before. I remember Loren Miller having >a system I particularly liked. (Come to think of it, I believe the >discussion happened on r.g.f.misc, not this mailer...) >Personally, I think the idea has a lot going for it. What holds >me back from wholeheartedly embracing it is pure fear of the >unknown: "It's just so different from the way we do it now..." I think the idea of different skill levels for craft will appeal to a lot of people, and a precedent exists: language skills. The whole issue is: Is this suggestion really different from the standard GM option of adding or subbing percentages to the skill for any particular tasks? You can look at the issue from two sides: skills vs tasks. Using the (30/60/90) model is using a skill based approach. The task based approach is defining "hard/medium/simple" task levels, combined with skill bonuses or penalties. This is one of the traditional ways of resolving skill tests in the case of trivial or simple tasks: Modify the die roll or skill. Take the example of a simple task: repairing a bronze brooch by unbending a pin. Almost anyone can do that. So a crafter with 30% will succeed easily. So, add 70% to skill for a "simple" task. In general: Add xx% to skill for a task of level n, where xx% starts from +70% going rapidly down to +40%, 0, -40%, -70% ... If the modified skill is (substantially) greater than 100, the GM has the option of omitting the die roll. If there is a possibility that the possible effect of failure could be drastic, just use the die roll to test for fumble. -- Henk | Henk.Langeveld@Sun.COM - Disclaimer: I don't speak for Sun. oK[] | RuneQuest-Request@Glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA07854; Fri, 2 Jul 93 08:36:15 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA16057; Fri, 2 Jul 93 09:35:59 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Fri, 2 Jul 93 9:35:41 EDT From: David Cheng To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: What does a n% skill really mean? Date: Fri, 2 Jul 93 9:35:15 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <3408AA03779@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Henk makes a good argument. Another example I can think of is Climbing. Frequently, I'll say "Good handholds on the ledge are good for +25%, but a rope would be worth +50%." But, I don't think the simple 'add a modifier to the roll' mechanic covers all cases that we would want to cover. Let's go back to the Dancing example. It still makes sense to me that without rolling, a 30% dancer is adequate, but an 80% dancer is worth paying to see. How do we reflect this with modifiers? Someone (sorry, archived and deleted the message already) suggested that the player doesn't roll unless "pushing it"; i.e. trying to make a superior spearpoint. I kinda like this, but I admit I haven't thought it through to uncover any hidden flaws. As I said in the original message, I'd like to revisit Loren's original suggestion, as I remember it striking me as particularly good. But that too is buried somewhere in my archives... -David Cheng drcheng@sales.stern.nyu.edu  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA09496; Fri, 2 Jul 93 09:32:55 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA18374; Fri, 2 Jul 93 10:32:41 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Fri, 2 Jul 93 10:32:20 EDT From: burt@ptltd.com (Burton Choinski) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: SORCERY Date: Fri, 2 Jul 93 10:28:56 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <3417C8E60EC@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Joerg Baumgartner (|) and Dave Cake (>) on my Sorcery Suggestion... ------------------------------------------------------------ | > I really like the basic concept behind Burtons sorcery system, with | >studies as well as skills and spells (though I think that calling studies | > skills is actually quite fine) | | Studies is quite a ggod word for it. I was thinking of something like "name | lore" when I toyed with this idea, like everyone/thing having its own true | name, and the study/skill represents how close the sorcerer came to it. That's how I envisioned it, but I wanted something other then "Iron Lore", "Bronze Lore" etc. I see the studies as an in-depth examinination of the substance -- chemical propertites, malleability, color, feel, etc. The study allows you to "know" the substance. I came up with the whole thing because it seemed insane for a Sorcerer, who wants to know the whole bank of Substance affecting spells, needs to learn 4x (number of substances), rather then 4+ (number of substances). It makes it more logical to link them anyways. Having Mastered Form/Set, The Sorcerer can then spend time researching the substances of his interest. As a CS person, I didn't study "C graphics", "Postscript graphics", "Fortran Graphics", "Basic Graphics", "C Business", etc. I learned the tools/spells/languages, then apply those tools on my studies to produce the desired affect. | > I have a few minor problems with it (I am happy for some spells to | >remain ungeneralised, and I think that some of the Studies are somwhat | >redundant (like Attribute studies, I'd rather that these spells remain | >separate spells rather than variants)), but overall I like it, and would | >be happy for RQ Sorcery to take this form. It is reminescent of Ars Magica | >and Chivalry and Sorcery, but without immense complexity. | | From the power balance point of view, you are right about the attribute | spells being different spells, but for the sake of simplicity, I'd throw | them in with the other spells. When I was organizing the spells I was trying to come up with some internal consistancy in the ways the spells fall out. Spells that do not have a category are just not properly classified. :) Take two spells -- Smother (Banish ) and a similarly made Ignite (Conjure ). Both are effective death sentances at high durations if you overcome the poor bastard's magic points. If you have to handle 10 minutes (minimal duration) of no air or 1d3 location damage on your head each melee round, you will be equally in trouble. Also, look at TAP and DIMINISH. Which is more cost effective -- Tap STR at intensity 3, or Diminish STR with a duration 3? The former is FOREVER while the later is a pain for just over an hour. Yet technically, both are the same "quanta" of spell -- they are cast as needed. TAP is not a ritual or anything. Given the current inconsistancies in the Sorcery magic, I though it best to work up a consistant base idea, then determine the modifiers from this base to simulate the existing spells. Granted, working from this constant base does make some spells redundant (Tap becomes a more cost-effective Diminish, since the attribute "energy" lost is converted to useful form in the former, but thrown to the winds in the later. If I work on this some more I'm sure I'll fold other spells together and work out modifiers. | > What I would like to know, before I try to rewrite it etc., is how do | >others on the list feel about it (either like or dislike), and how do Oliver | >and the gang feel about it? try to concentrate on generalities rather than | >specifics. | | As you might see from my answer, I support this for a generalized system for | certain spell effects. I have no problem with specific spells sewn together | from this taught to lesser pupils, such as Paul Reilly's Hrestoli spells in | the Dailies, and certainly there would be restrictions as to who teaches or | knows which studies, varying from sect to college. This idea makes sense. The peasants, lords and knights are given "black box" spells, with all the components hidden. They just push the button (cast their MP and say the right words) and off it goes to do it's specific purpose. Once you get to the Wizard stage you are finally taught the Studies and Skills and spells you need to roll your won. | I'd propose that one can alternatively learn a certain combination of | manipulation plus spell plus study as one new spell with fixed costs, which | would be the way these are taught to students. The spell bundles could be pre-created with duration, range, intensity all figured in, then take 25% off the magic cost off the top since it is a complete and formalized spell, polished and well defined (As opposed to casting on the fly by taking Spell X, throwing in Study Y, mixing in a few manipulations and hurling it at the target). Such "Fixed" spells have casting percentages, just as if you picked up a Sorcery spell matrix...You have to learn how to properly use it just like any other spell. You could have "Lazy Sorcerers" who just learn polished bundles from other sorcerers without knowing the underlying parts, and to Fred the Impala rider he would look as much a sorcerer as one who knows the whole ball of wax. But observation would show which is the true master of the arts, and who is just a dabbler, a street magician with a bag of tricks. If all you have is an Ignite 10, lighting campfires eats a lot of magic. But the real mage can just toss on an Ignite 1 and be done with it. I'm going to have to work on this some more. It might have some promise if I can figure out the subtle rules that the effects of the spells must follow. -- Burton  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA10272; Fri, 2 Jul 93 09:56:42 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA19137; Fri, 2 Jul 93 10:55:59 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Fri, 2 Jul 93 10:56:07 EDT From: Malcolm Cohen To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Maintenance Date: Fri, 2 Jul 93 15:55:23 MET Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <341DFBD39C9@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Yes, I like the look of the proposed maintenance rules: > A basic 30% Craft skill and simple tools are considered sufficient to > maintain ordinary cultural equipment in good working order while away from > With 60% skill in a Craft, equipment at the top end of the range for the > culture may be maintained. With 90% skill, imported equipment somewhat > beyond the cultural level of the crafter may also be maintained indefinitely. to avoid the breakpoints, I guess we have to have "maintain ordinary" being 3x the skill to be rolled, etc. For achieving simple tasks which go beyond a simple modifier (a mod of +70% - blechh!) I do think that a multiplier is a better mechanism to use than add/sub. After all, we already have this mechanism enshrined in rolling vs. characteristics (strength et al). I think it makes a nicer fit to reality than doing an add (besides which, it retains the twice as good at base == twice as good at any task, up to 100%). OTOH, it does not look significant enough to add to RQ4. Cute, and even nice (I may use it in my game); but not worth the extra complication. Definitely an "optional rule". -- ...........................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 AA29679; Fri, 2 Jul 93 19:19:42 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA08506; Fri, 2 Jul 93 20:19:23 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Fri, 2 Jul 93 20:19:06 EDT From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: What does a n% skill really mean? Date: Fri, 02 Jul 1993 16:17:18 MEZ Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <34B44EE4A26@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Henk Langefeld writes in reply to David Cheng: >I think the idea of different skill levels for craft will appeal to >a lot of people, and a precedent exists: language skills. Not quite: the actual die roll is based on the sum of the percentages (at least that's how we play it in RQ3). >The whole issue is: Is this suggestion really different from the >standard GM option of adding or subbing percentages to the skill >for any particular tasks? Yes, it introduces skills with percentages becoming automatic skills (like walking, breathing etc.). >You can look at the issue from two sides: skills vs tasks. >Using the (30/60/90) model is using a skill based approach. >The task based approach is defining "hard/medium/simple" task >levels, combined with skill bonuses or penalties. >This is one of the traditional ways of resolving skill tests in the case >of trivial or simple tasks: Modify the die roll or skill. >Take the example of a simple task: repairing a bronze brooch by >unbending a pin. Almost anyone can do that. So a crafter with 30% >will succeed easily. So, add 70% to skill for a "simple" task. I'd prefer another approach: keep the skill level as it is, and redefine the success/failure results. E.g. for climbing a failure is failure to continue climbing in the direction one wants to go. Assign the tasks' die modifier only after the die roll, and see if the rol would have been sufficient for easy, medium, hard or very hard, and interpret the result accordingly. -- Joerg Baumgartner rq4@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA11219; Fri, 2 Jul 93 10:20:19 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA20056; Fri, 2 Jul 93 11:20:04 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Fri, 2 Jul 93 11:19:43 EDT From: Henk.Langeveld@Holland.Sun.COM (Henk Langeveld - Sun Nederland) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: SORCERY Date: Fri, 2 Jul 93 17:19:25 +0200 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <342466E5608@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> _________________________________ burt@ptltd.com (Burton Choinski): > The spell bundles could be pre-created with duration, range, intensity > all figured in, then take 25% off the magic cost off the top since it is a > complete and formalized spell, polished and well defined (As opposed to > casting on the fly by taking Spell X, throwing in Study Y, mixing in a > few manipulations and hurling it at the target). Such "Fixed" spells have > casting percentages, just as if you picked up a Sorcery spell matrix...You > have to learn how to properly use it just like any other spell. And why not give people a base change of POWx5, while we're at it? :-) You'd only need a good name for it, something like, ehm, bat..., ehm, basic magic? > I'm going to have to work on this some more. It might have some promise > if I can figure out the subtle rules that the effects of the spells must > follow. > -- Burton Sorcery is the study of magic. Sorcerors are those who want to know it works. They abhor the mystifications of the shamans and barbarians and their priests... -- Henk | Henk.Langeveld@Sun.COM - Disclaimer: I don't speak for Sun. oK[] | RuneQuest-Request@Glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA11964; Fri, 2 Jul 93 10:36:14 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA20714; Fri, 2 Jul 93 11:36:02 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Fri, 2 Jul 93 11:35:40 EDT From: burt@ptltd.com (Burton Choinski) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: SORCERY Date: Fri, 2 Jul 93 11:32:15 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <3428AAE2657@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Henk picks nits. :) -------------------------- > The spell bundles could be pre-created with duration, range, intensity > all figured in, then take 25% off the magic cost off the top since it is a And why not give people a base change of POWx5, while we're at it? :-) You'd only need a good name for it, something like, ehm, bat..., ehm, basic magic? -------------------------- There is no mystifying here. The serfs and lords KNOW that the results are simply a siplified form of what a sorcerer does. It's more on the lines of feeding the serf a 1040ez form rather than a 1040. :) Joe serf is presumably tought some of the sorcery skills when he becomes a knight, some others when he becomes a lord, and is fully taught at wizard level. And I didn't do POX*5, wiseguy, because it ain't spiritual. :) -- Burton  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA12283; Fri, 2 Jul 93 10:44:14 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA21035; Fri, 2 Jul 93 11:44:01 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Fri, 2 Jul 93 11:43:40 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Sorcery with studies Date: Fri, 2 Jul 93 11:44:17 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <342AD2A7BBA@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Joerg writes: >I was thinking of something like "name >lore" when I toyed with this idea, like everyone/thing having its own true >name, In our campaign we used the various special Speeches as 'true' languages for magical purposes, rather than inventing Fire Lore, Water Lore, etc. (e.g., Seaspeech for water magic, Stormspeech for air, Spirit Speech for spirits, etc.) I think that this disagrees with semi-official (i.e. unpublished) stuff, though. >new spell with fixed costs In our campaign this is how the Vadeli do it (they have no Sorcerer caste). Again, completely unofficial. - Paul  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA13277; Fri, 2 Jul 93 11:10:07 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA22048; Fri, 2 Jul 93 12:09:47 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Fri, 2 Jul 93 12:09:29 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: What does a n% skill really mean? Date: Fri, 2 Jul 93 12:10:06 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <3431B9632BB@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Paul again. David Cheng writes: > a >30% dancer is adequate, but an 80% dancer is worth paying to see. >How do we reflect this with modifiers? One can do this with levels of success. Use my proposed RQ mod of the Pendragon system: Success level = (Type of success) Number Rolled Higher numbers within a category are better. Thus a guy with 50% skill (including modifiers) who rolls a 10 has a Special 10, which is better than any Normal success or any Special of 9 or less. Now combine this with my proposed rule that you can try for a straight Normal success level of your skill or lower, with a bonus of (Your skill) - (Success level you are trying for). If the 80% dancer tries only for a Normal 65 (a better success than non-professionals will ever get, barring the 'beginner's luck' of specials and crits) then his chance of getting a Normal 65 is 80% + (80% - 65%) = 95%. This reflects the fact that the dancer is only using moves that he already knows well. He could also try for a Normal 80 (a very good normal success, what critics would call `excellent technique') with an 80% chance of success, but no chance for a crit or special. This means that 'easy' stuff (say you need only any success at all, a Normal 1) can be done nearly automatically (95%) at the 43% skill level, which seems about right to me. Super-easy tasks (tying your shoes with your Devise skill) could be given special bonusses if necessary, but this sort of thing is best handled without a skill roll at all, in most circumstances. _________________  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA18965; Fri, 2 Jul 93 13:53:22 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA28289; Fri, 2 Jul 93 14:52:24 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Fri, 2 Jul 93 14:52:04 EDT From: David Cheng To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: "The Rules Lawyer's Guide To RQ" Date: Fri, 2 Jul 93 14:51:35 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <345D0F629A9@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> This is a blasphemous idea that I've shared with Oliver. I would like to post it here for us to kick around, criticize, praise, etc... * RQ4 comes out with a nice simple, elegant set of rules with lots of internal consistency and cultural (Gloranthan) relevance. * LATER, the "Rules Lawyer's Guide to RQ" (working title) is published. Only in the RLGRQ are all these optional rules that we are so fond of kicking around actually published. Hell, we could publish _all_ of them, for those who really salivate over rules minutae. I envision the following sections in the RLGRQ: 1) Suggested Rules Rules that didn't make it into the basic RQ4 book, because we wanted to keep it simple. But, we think they'll add a more distinct flavor to your game, and maybe even improve it. In this section goes: Fatigue, slash/crush (?), new/optional skills, and other simple things. 2) Optional Rules Rules ideas that don't get enough endorsement to go in section 1. * Could even present several options for the same topic. * In this section potentially goes: Special combat tactics (Flurry, Weave, Mighty Blow, etc.), several Sorcery systems, DC's world- reknown/vilified Rune Power variant, skills like March, etc. 3) Very Optional Rules Rules ideas that get even less acceptance, but where the author has enough clout to get them in the book in the first place. Things like: Martin Crim's Spirit Combat variant, Nick Brooke's "spontaneous Rune Magic," and other blasphemy. 4) Totally wacky stuff Rules to really placate the total Rules-Lawyer-Heads. Stuff like: Tables on how pregnancy affects the skill percentages of female characters (who remembers that Different Worlds actually published this?), the effect of muddy conditions on combat movement (down to increments of 1/10th of a metre), and how interracial matings affect the child's characteristics... Of course, these could be just sub-headings within major headings like: * Combat Rules * Magic Rules * Skill variants * Campaign-play Rules (like the Pregnancy stuff) Also, certain rules could be classified as "Glorantha-Friendly" and "Strictly Gateway." I may be sounding sarcastic at times here, but I am very serious about this idea. I honestly think it has merit. Please tell me/us if you agree, why, and how we could improve on the concept. -David Cheng (going off to write more of the RQ-Con pre-reg book now...)  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA20594; Fri, 2 Jul 93 14:24:09 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA29555; Fri, 2 Jul 93 15:23:53 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Fri, 2 Jul 93 15:23:31 EDT From: curtiss@netcom.com (Curtis Shenton) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: "The Rules Lawyer's Guide To RQ" Date: Fri, 2 Jul 93 12:24:13 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <346574F381A@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> > > > This is a blasphemous idea that I've shared with Oliver. I would like > to post it here for us to kick around, criticize, praise, etc... > > * RQ4 comes out with a nice simple, elegant set of rules with lots of > internal consistency and cultural (Gloranthan) relevance. > > * LATER, the "Rules Lawyer's Guide to RQ" (working title) > is published. I don't think these need to be seperate. Why not have a core set of rules, like Loren's RQ Lite idea. And then expansion sections. Like GURPS Basic and Advanced combat, each is a seperate chapter but the transition from basic to advanced is quite smooth. > > Only in the RLGRQ are all these optional rules that we are so fond of > kicking around actually published. Hell, we could publish _all_ > of them, for those who really salivate over rules minutae. > > I envision the following sections in the RLGRQ: > > 1) Suggested Rules > > Rules that didn't make it into the basic RQ4 book, because we wanted > to keep it simple. But, we think they'll add a more distinct flavor > to your game, and maybe even improve it. > > In this section goes: Fatigue, slash/crush (?), new/optional skills, > and other simple things. Strike Ranks? :) > > 2) Optional Rules > > Rules ideas that don't get enough endorsement to go in section 1. > * Could even present several options for the same topic. * > > In this section potentially goes: Special combat tactics (Flurry, > Weave, Mighty Blow, etc.), several Sorcery systems, DC's world- > reknown/vilified Rune Power variant, skills like March, etc. This is getting to spread out. Endless variants aren't really needed IMHO. > > 3) Very Optional Rules > > Rules ideas that get even less acceptance, but where the author has > enough clout to get them in the book in the first place. > > Things like: Martin Crim's Spirit Combat variant, Nick Brooke's > "spontaneous Rune Magic," and other blasphemy. > > 4) Totally wacky stuff > > Rules to really placate the total Rules-Lawyer-Heads. > > Stuff like: Tables on how pregnancy affects the skill percentages of > female characters (who remembers that Different Worlds actually published > this?), the effect of muddy conditions on combat movement (down to > increments of 1/10th of a metre), and how interracial matings affect > the child's characteristics... > > Of course, these could be just sub-headings within major headings like: > > * Combat Rules > * Magic Rules > * Skill variants > * Campaign-play Rules (like the Pregnancy stuff) > > Also, certain rules could be classified as "Glorantha-Friendly" and > "Strictly Gateway." > > > I may be sounding sarcastic at times here, but I am very serious about > this idea. I honestly think it has merit. Please tell me/us if > you agree, why, and how we could improve on the concept. > > -David Cheng > (going off to write more of the RQ-Con pre-reg book now...) > > Overall I'm not too fond of this idea. I'd like to see a simple core RQ system and then optional rules that expand on it. Like a simple combat system and then an advanced section that ads all the combat tatctics. I don't want RQ to go down the road AD&D second edition has gone with endless expansions coming out. -- 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 cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.10/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA17685; Fri, 2 Jul 93 14:42:05 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA00289; Fri, 2 Jul 93 15:40:16 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Fri, 2 Jul 93 15:39:57 EDT From: Christopher Brian Pound To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: "The Rules Lawyer's Guide To RQ" Date: Fri, 2 Jul 93 14:40:00 CDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <3469DB01F7E@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> > I may be sounding sarcastic at times here, but I am very serious about > this idea. I honestly think it has merit. Please tell me/us if > you agree, why, and how we could improve on the concept. > > -David Cheng I think this is a GREAT idea. Benefits: 1) It has a precedent in that many, many other games come out with rules companions and expansions. 2) It'll make the game a lot less intimidating to beginners. 3) A lot of good ideas that won't make the cut otherwise will get published. 4) It ought to help now in designing RQ4 (giving a particular idea a low priority won't seem so harsh). Advice: 1) Publish it at about the same time as the game itself to get the "ooh, ah" effect from old-timers who want to get started experimenting with the new rules right away. 2) Give all optional rules easy-to-remember shorthand names (I'm thinking, for example, of all the options for poker; it should be easy to list specific major rules additions being used in a game at a con or when describing your game in a Usenet article). 3) A couple of amusing rules (e.g. a "flee wildly" skill for Ducks ;) would be fun. 4) A section on tailoring/inventing magic systems for different regions of Glorantha could be useful. 5) Don't worry about organizing it too "logically" (spoils the treasure trove effect and makes you worry about where to put things), but give it a VERY good index with many cross-references, etc., listing the same rule or part of a rule under everything you can think of (allot more space for this than just the back cover! :). This 'RuleQuest' Companion could be pretty neat ... Later, Chris Pound  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA21919; Fri, 2 Jul 93 14:56:47 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA00902; Fri, 2 Jul 93 15:56:30 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Fri, 2 Jul 93 15:56:09 EDT From: "Roderick Robertson, SC1-5, x52936" To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: What does a n% skill really mean? Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1993 12:56 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <346E2A0426C@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> David Cheng: >Paul has a system: >_________________ >If the 80% dancer tries only for a Normal 65 (a better success than >non-professionals will ever get, barring the 'beginner's luck' of specials >and crits) then his chance of getting a Normal 65 is 80% + (80% - 65%) = >95%. >This reflects the fact that the dancer is only using moves that he already >knows well. >_________________ >I see how this works, and I like the logic of it, but I dread using it >in game. Too much math - too much 'thinking.' >IMHO, it is not "elegant" nor "graceful." It may very well work like >a charm, but if I'm at GenCon trying to spread the RQ gospel to some >kids who've played little but D&D and Marvel Super Heroes, I fear they'll >flee in terror when I try to explain this system. It will give the >TSR guys a free shot at us. They _already_ say "Oh, RuneQuest; that game >is so complex..." We know that the basic percentile skill system is >both simple and elegant; we just have to let others know about it too. > >-DC Make it an optional rule. Then, you don't have to explain it to the newbies, but it's available to them when they buy the book. Make the cut-off point dependant on the skill type (perhaps Easy - 10%, Medium - 30%, Hard - 50%, Very Hard - 70%). Then the GM doesn't have to figure out how much the character can add to his roll. So if the Ernalda Harvest Dance is an easy dance, the dancer can shoot for a Normal 10, adding the difference to his chance as above. If he attemptd the Orlanthi Sword Dance (Hard), he would shoot for a Normal 50. Thus, characters under the thresholds can't begin to perform the more complicated steps/tasks as 'routine', but would still have a chance to do so, perhaps failing/succeeding out of the ordinary. This also allows the GM to declare a specific task's difficulty within a skill, such as the dances above. (One of these days I have to get my Cultural Dance ideas onto paper/disk) If we took this idea to Combat, the GM could declare a fight non-critical (slaughtering a horde of guards on the way to the throne room, where the Evil Prince(tm) and Vile Henchmen(tm) wait). The PC's could fight without Specials/Criticals/Fumbles, but add to their skill as above. While this is antithetical to the RQ notion that All Combat is Deadly, in more Cinematic/Heroic/Conan/Fafhrd & Grey/Swashbuckling games, it could work. Roderick  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA22843; Fri, 2 Jul 93 15:26:59 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA02046; Fri, 2 Jul 93 16:26:43 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Fri, 2 Jul 93 16:26:21 EDT From: "Roderick Robertson, SC1-5, x52936" To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: "The Rules Lawyer's Guide To RQ" Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1993 13:01 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <34763552ADA@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Sounds like the vairous companions to RoleMaster to me... Roderick Robertson  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA00421; Fri, 2 Jul 93 19:55:05 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA09028; Fri, 2 Jul 93 20:54:53 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Fri, 2 Jul 93 20:54:30 EDT From: David Cheng To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re:"The Rules Lawyer's Guide to RQ" Date: Fri, 2 Jul 93 20:54:08 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <34BDB6E7C4D@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Some clarification on the RLGRQ idea: * No axe to grind here. What I'm concerned about is the "make it optional" proliferation. I like the idea that optional rules be presented in shaded boxes. I do not like the idea of 35% of the RQ4 book being shaded boxes... * I see this as a way to get good rules development recognized. The Runic Sorcery idea has a lot of "that's neat" value, but I don't see it becoming the core sorcery rules. It would be a shame if only people with Internet access saw such items. * In my discussions with Oliver, I've come to understand that there is a sizable percentage of RQers who want significantly fewer/ simpler rules. Have you noticed that even the unstoppable Nick Brooke hasn't been posting very much lately? I know as fact that he's a "simpler is better" kind of guy, and I fear that he, and others like him, have abandoned this discussion in frustration. How about a new approach: PROS of the "Rules Lawyer's Guide" (sarcastic title intentional) ================================= * Keeps core RQ4 book lean and unintimidating * FORCES hard decisions about what gets put in RQ4, and what gets "relegated" to the supplement. This helps fight the "make it an optional rule in a shaded box" syndrome. * Allows good material to still see the light of day, even if it conflicts with the "standard" rules in the core RQ4 book. Remember, this is a book of variants, too. CONS of the "Rules Lawyer's Guide" ================================= * Even though we can say in big bold print "the rules presented here are all meant to be optional," there will still be compaints about having to buy multiple books to 'have a full set of rules.' * Confusion and complexity when running tournament events. * Pulls material away from possible publication in magazines. This is a serious concern, as having a RQ variant appear in, say, _White Wolf_ is free publicity. I've got us started. Help me out here - what else? -David Cheng  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA06488; Sat, 3 Jul 93 01:41:39 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA21349; Sat, 3 Jul 93 02:41:13 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Sat, 3 Jul 93 2:40:57 EDT From: curtiss@netcom.com (Curtis Shenton) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re:"The Rules Lawyer's Guide to RQ" Date: Fri, 2 Jul 93 23:41:35 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <351A1723329@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> > > > Some clarification on the RLGRQ idea: > > * No axe to grind here. What I'm concerned about is the "make it > optional" proliferation. I like the idea that optional rules be > presented in shaded boxes. I do not like the idea of 35% of the > RQ4 book being shaded boxes... I really don't see that as being that big of a problem. But that might just be me. :) > > * I see this as a way to get good rules development recognized. The > Runic Sorcery idea has a lot of "that's neat" value, but I don't > see it becoming the core sorcery rules. It would be a shame if > only people with Internet access saw such items. True enough. But if we could get a RQ Magazine going again... > > * In my discussions with Oliver, I've come to understand that there > is a sizable percentage of RQers who want significantly fewer/ > simpler rules. Have you noticed that even the unstoppable Nick > Brooke hasn't been posting very much lately? I know as fact that > he's a "simpler is better" kind of guy, and I fear that he, > and others like him, have abandoned this discussion in > frustration. Simpler is better! The way things are going I expect to use Elric!+ the magic rules from RQIV if I ever run Glorantha. RQ is too complicated already and RQIV looks like it's getting worse not better. Especially combat, it's a big, complicated mess. And RQ combat, especialyl RQIII is very, very slow. Now I play GURPS which doesn't have the fastest combat system in the world but I've found RQIII to be much to slow for my taste. > > How about a new approach: > > PROS of the "Rules Lawyer's Guide" (sarcastic title intentional) > ================================= > * Keeps core RQ4 book lean and unintimidating > * FORCES hard decisions about what gets put in RQ4, and what gets > "relegated" to the supplement. This helps fight the "make it an > optional rule in a shaded box" syndrome. > * Allows good material to still see the light of day, even if it > conflicts with the "standard" rules in the core RQ4 book. > Remember, this is a book of variants, too. > > CONS of the "Rules Lawyer's Guide" > ================================= > * Even though we can say in big bold print "the rules presented here > are all meant to be optional," there will still be compaints about > having to buy multiple books to 'have a full set of rules.' > * Confusion and complexity when running tournament events. > * Pulls material away from possible publication in magazines. This > is a serious concern, as having a RQ variant appear in, say, _White > Wolf_ is free publicity. > I think the problem here is about how many optional rules we plan to publish "officially" Now to me the only excuse for rules is to simulate realism. If the game is supposed to be very unrealistic then it should have very few, and very simple rules(TWERPS and TOON are two good examples) if you want lots of realism then you need more complicated rules(GURPS and the BTRC system for example) but I think RQ has always had too many rules for the level of realism it tries to simulate. Look at Stormbringer(and hopefully Elric!) the same basic mechanics yet the game is a simpler than RQ as well as elegant and fast. Now maybe we want more realism than Stormbringer but we don't need to publish 300+ pages of optional rules. > > I've got us started. Help me out here - what else? > > -David Cheng > -- 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 AA09096; Sat, 3 Jul 93 05:18:27 -0500 Return-Path: <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA23040; Sat, 3 Jul 93 06:18:09 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Sat, 3 Jul 93 6:17:50 EDT From: Nick Brooke <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Rules Lawyer's Guide Date: 03 Jul 93 06:14:14 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <3553F8016C1@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> "Simple Nick" replies: David's idea that we concentrate on the "hard decisions" now (separating out essential stuff for "core RQ4" and "suggested/optional/wacky" ideas for a later release) looks sensible to me. It can't help but focus our discussion on the things that will get published, and away from the trivia that people will ignore or change in any case. I know we can all heap criticism on "rules supplements" like the proposed Guide as a publishing policy ("the thin end of the wedge"; "blatantly commercial"; "cynical and exploitative"), but anything that makes the game more approachable for "entry level" gamers is fine by me. The fact that you can go to any games shop and see dozens of similar products for other games doesn't prove that it won't work for RQ. As Carl knows, we have to make a commercially-viable RQ4 or Avalon Hill won't like it very much. Adopting a tried, tested and successful marketing strategy can hardly hurt us. Besides which, we're already writing the bugger here on the Net. Nothing personal, guys, but I'd quite like our ideas to reach a wider audience of gamers than us modem-heads. Lots of words are bandied here that will never fit into the RQ4 book, and plenty of them have merit. > I like the idea that optional rules be presented in shaded boxes. > I do not like the idea of 35% of the RQ4 book being shaded boxes... Right. And I don't see any other easy solution to this. Different things bother different people: as gamemaster I have never felt the need for any fatigue rules, but have always kept some "special hit" damage results for non-Impaling weapons -- the old Slashes & Crushes. Other people obviously feel differently, or RQ3 wouldn't have happened. > In my discussions with Oliver, I've come to understand that there is a > sizable percentage of RQers who want significantly fewer/simpler rules. The problem is, we always end up looking like carping critics on this net. It takes many hours of work to build a magnificent new Sorcery or Fatigue system, and only a few lines to heap ridicule on it as unworkably flawed, tasteless or unnecessary. So this forum doesn't represent (bulk for bulk) the balance of opinions. Things like the new OJ "opinion poll questions" are probably a good idea. (Hope everyone is answering him!). But I fear that the people who *want* to design a new and better set of RQ rules may be the last ones who should be allowed to -- they obviously think the rules are what's important to the game! (This is also the main argument against Democracy, if you didn't recognise it!) Oh, and I *am* a carping critic where changes to my beloved RuneQuest are concerned: I don't want her to end up looking ridiculous. Two separate books of RQ4 would help us make the break. One lean and mean set of basic Gloranthan rules which we could *all* adore, and a second book packed with small-print optional extras for grubby-minded nit-pickers who commit the cardinal sin of referring to the rules while they're playing the game... > Have you noticed that even the unstoppable Nick Brooke hasn't been > posting very much lately? I know as fact that he's a "simpler is > better" kind of guy, and I fear that he, and others like him, have > abandoned this discussion in frustration. Well, as David knows, there's *some* truth in that. A lot of the public discussion on this Net is ephemeral; if you say a lot at once, most of it gets ignored. Like the rest of us, I'm looking forward to more concrete proposals from the Gang of "X". Like a new draft. That's the only way to find out which ideas are catching on and which are dead and buried. Besides, I've realised that whatever RQ4 says won't define or change the way I play RuneQuest any more than RQ3 did. That is: I'll buy the rules, take over the good ones, chuck out the duff ones, and carry on playing the way I want to. I can laugh at people who blindly stick to the older/worse rules, and attempt to edify those who play by the newer/worse rules. Just like we all did when RQ2 changed to RQ3. Cheers, ==== Nick ==== BTW, Curtis said (apropos of variant rules seeing publication): > ... if we could get a RQ Magazine going again ... Will you tell him or shall I??  0, answered,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA11891; Sat, 3 Jul 93 09:45:21 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA28970; Sat, 3 Jul 93 10:44:42 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Sat, 3 Jul 93 10:44:42 EDT From: curtiss@netcom.com (Curtis Shenton) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Rules Lawyer's Guide Date: Sat, 3 Jul 93 7:44:58 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <359B07F4B24@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> > > ==== > Nick > ==== > > BTW, Curtis said (apropos of variant rules seeing publication): > > > ... if we could get a RQ Magazine going again ... > > Will you tell him or shall I?? > > I was responding to the idea that multiple supplements was the only way to get rules to a wider audience than just the net. Tales(which I assume you're refering to) isn't quite there yet. I want a magazine that is carried by lots of gaming stores so more than just the hardcore fans will see it. -- 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 AA11997; Sat, 3 Jul 93 09:59:45 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA29052; Sat, 3 Jul 93 10:59:30 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Sat, 3 Jul 93 10:59:06 EDT From: curtiss@netcom.com (Curtis Shenton) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RQIV Survey (Damage) Date: Sat, 3 Jul 93 7:59:47 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <359EFCE4F3A@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> 1-Yes 2-Yes -- 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 AA12261; Sat, 3 Jul 93 10:29:40 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA29504; Sat, 3 Jul 93 11:29:28 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Sat, 3 Jul 93 11:29:02 EDT From: Anthony Ragan To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: RQ4 Rules lawyer's Guide Date: Sat, 03 Jul 93 08:29 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <35A6FCF0A26@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Hi all, Personally, I've never had a problem with a company producing endless supplements to their game -- I've never felt constrained to buy anything beyond the core rules of a system. Why people get so up in arms whenever "The Company that Must Not Be Named" issues yet another Complete "______'s" Handbook is beyond me. Now, if it's the *quality* of the supplement that gets them riled......;) That said, I still don't see a real need to have a follow-on RQ optional rules book. Do we really have that many rules that we could fill a standard-sized (whatever that is) book? And, would enough people buy such a book to make it commercially worthwhile to AH? I tend to doubt it. I have to agree with Curtis on this one: Gurps does a good job at presenting basic and advanced systems in one book. I think we could do the same thing with RQ and have a fine product. --Anthony ecz5rar@mvs.oac.ucla.edu -OR- 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 AA13188; Sat, 3 Jul 93 11:49:27 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA00549; Sat, 3 Jul 93 12:49:06 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Sat, 3 Jul 93 12:48:49 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: What does a n% skill really mean? Date: Sat, 3 Jul 93 12:49:27 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <35BC427619E@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Paul R. again. Another approach (can be combined with what we have said already) Keep the success level definition as I have proposed it. Now define say "Failure 30" as a sufficient success level for an easy task. (Don't be put off by the word "Failure", just think of it as Success Level 0) Say Failure 30 is the minimum skill level to perform the Harvest Dance 'successfully' for someone who has been shown the steps. Now someone with a 30% Dance Skill will only fail if he fumbles. Someone with a 15% Dance skill will fail on a fumble (and fall down or whatever) and on a roll of 16-29 he will make obvious missteps, etc. I actually like the other method better in some ways, because it models the real-world choice people have of going for a practically guaranteed moderate success on something they know well, or trying to "go for broke" and have a substantial chance of failure but also the possibility of a special or crit. - p  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA13949; Sat, 3 Jul 93 12:29:33 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01099; Sat, 3 Jul 93 13:29:19 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Sat, 3 Jul 93 13:28:55 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RQ4 Rules lawyer's Guide Date: Sat, 3 Jul 93 13:29:31 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <35C6F0B477E@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> I would say, produce a simple core system and prioritize the optional rules. Then let publishing constraints decide what goes in the basic rules and what goes in additional books. The core rules might include simple metarules for making rules. Thus for example if you can branch Easy specialty skills off of Hard general skills the procedure for doing this should go in the core rules, along with a couple of examples. Then you need only the root skills and some examples of branch skills appropriate to the example campaign area. For example, 1H Sword might be Hard with Easy branches like Scimitar, Broadsword, Rapier, etc. Scimitar and Broadsword would be good examples for Sartar but Rapier could be left out. Personally I would prefer a simplified combat system and more extensive social rules. (Like Pendragon.) Offering a simple system and optional extras would thus suit me. Of course it would be a tricky job to write such a cleverly designed modular system. - Paul R  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA22119; Sat, 3 Jul 93 21:06:47 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA04482; Sat, 3 Jul 93 22:03:15 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Sat, 3 Jul 93 22:06:07 EDT From: Amazing Larry To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: COMMENTS ON RQ4 SURVEY DAMAGE/ARMOR Date: Sat, 03 Jul 1993 21:03:19 -0500 (CDT) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <365002361C1@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Two comments on the proposed weapon/armor rules. 1) JAVELIN DAMAGE 1H javelin = 1D4 2H javelin = 1D6 thrown javelin = 1D8 One arm throwing is more powerful than two thrusting? I do not want to rationalize this (unless someone else can for me). 2) OVERLAPPING ARMOR >Overlapping armor has little effect normally - if the lighter of the >overlapping armors has at least 3 AP, add 1 AP to value of the heavier armor, Under these rules, I see that only linen, scale, and chain can be used this way. Why not then say: "If linen, scale, or chain is worn with heavier armor, add 1 AP to the value of the heavier armor." -Ed Wallman@vax2.winona.msus.edu (bezainted armor for sale, cheap!)  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA24437; Sun, 4 Jul 93 01:22:45 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA06848; Sun, 4 Jul 93 02:22:25 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Sun, 4 Jul 93 2:22:06 EDT From: davidc@cs.uwa.edu.au (David Cake) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re:"The Rules Lawyer's Guide to RQ" Date: Sun, 4 Jul 93 14:21:17 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <369523005C3@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> there is one very big problem with separating the rules into several books or sets. That is how do we choose the criteria for separation? What definately goes into the advanced set? Combat special options, combat trivia, most of the new skills, maybe ritual magic. Not much of a book so far. What might? many profession templates. Most creature stats, most of the Ganesmaster book stuff (except price lists shouldn't). What about sorcery? I get the feeling that people feel that sorcery is a good candidate for only being in the advanced book. Why? most of us don't use it much, and some core parts of the rules are still in a state of flux. Does this mean that sorcery is an 'optional' or advanced rule? No, it is just as optional as spirit magic or divine magic in a rules sense, just a little easier to ignore for all those who play in Prax/Sartar. Are supplements going to be written to require the advanced rules, or just the basic ones. If supplements are going to be written to require only the basic ones, if this results in anything even a little bit like the Basic/ Deluxe split of RQ3, I will be mighty mad. I really hated this a lot. If adventures require both, then everyone will end up buying both, so why split them? There are actually fairly few optional rules, as a %age of the rulesbook. David Hall or anyone else partly responsible for Ruined-Quest in TOTRM want to comment on the issue? Personally, I like the idea of one big book, with optional rules marked as optional. I could possibly cope with the idea of a separate Sorcery supplement, but only if it came out promptly. This would allow some adventures to be marked 'requires RQ4' and some to be marked 'requires RQ4 and Sorcery'. I don't think the idea of a Rune-Quest Lite is a good idea as a separate product. I ha't like the idea of RQ Lite much. Furthermore, I have empiriical evidence - the Basic set (whatever it was called) for RQ3, which just annoyed everybody. How does the proposed separation differ, how will it avoid the problems it caused? The balls in your court :-) Dave Cake  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA24660; Sun, 4 Jul 93 01:56:57 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA07052; Sun, 4 Jul 93 02:56:44 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Sun, 4 Jul 93 2:56:17 EDT From: davidc@cs.uwa.edu.au (David Cake) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Sorcery with studies Date: Sun, 4 Jul 93 14:55:57 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <369E48165A6@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> The more I think about this, the more I think that it could be made very nice indeed. I like the way that systems like this tend to create sorcerers with a multitude of capabilities, many of which are seldom used. I like the idea that sorcerers may end up with spells like Detect Fear, or spells that allow them to swim in Fire, or animate light, as a side effect of developing other capabilities. However, I think that the idea of adding 'formulaic'spells to the system is going to add immense complexity, reduce backwards compatibility, and not add to much (essentially splitting sorcery into two quite different systems, but with much the same capabilities. I also think that I prefer the term 'domains' to the term 'studies'? Any feedback? I am probably going to write up a version integrating the basics of Burtons system with the RQ4 draft 1.0 soon. If people like it, we could then go on to integrate the Paul Reilly Presence system, and have a sorcery system that is mighty fine! (I think if RQ4 does not include these things, I may well use them anyway). I will do this in a few days, when I get back from the departmental conference on Wednesday. Cheers, Dave Cake  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA29283; Sun, 4 Jul 93 10:32:56 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA14312; Sun, 4 Jul 93 11:32:37 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Sun, 4 Jul 93 11:32:15 EDT From: Carl Fink To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re:"The Rules Lawyer`s G Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1993 11:32:25 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <3727E066AC8@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Subject: RQ Lite davidc@cs.uwa.edu.au (David Cake) writes: D> I don't think the idea of a Rune-Quest Lite is a good idea as a separ >product. I ha't like the idea of RQ Lite much. Furthermore, I have empiriical > evidence - the Basic set (whatever it was called) for >RQ3, which just annoyed everybody. How does the proposed separation differ, >how will it avoid the problems it caused? The balls in your court :-) RQ lite would differ in that it would a)Be a playable game by itself b)Be a part of the complete rulebook, rather than a separate "crippleware" product. Carl  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA03441; Sun, 4 Jul 93 17:07:47 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA18671; Sun, 4 Jul 93 18:06:44 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Sun, 4 Jul 93 18:06:59 EDT From: gadbois@cs.utexas.edu (David Gadbois) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Rules Lawyer's Guide Date: Sun, 4 Jul 93 17:06:44 -0500 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <3790FF13201@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> From: curtiss@netcom.com (Curtis Shenton) Date: Sat, 3 Jul 93 7:44:58 PDT I was responding to the idea that multiple supplements was the only way to get rules to a wider audience than just the net. Tales(which I assume you're refering to) isn't quite there yet. I want a magazine that is carried by lots of gaming stores so more than just the hardcore fans will see it. I finally discovered the magic incantation necessary to get distributors excited about picking up Tales here in the States (60% discount with 10% ten-day payment bonus), so expect to see it in a game store near you in the coming months. --David  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA05477; Sun, 4 Jul 93 20:50:00 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA20301; Sun, 4 Jul 93 21:49:46 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Sun, 4 Jul 93 21:49:17 EDT From: JOVANOVIC@CUCCFA.CCC.COLUMBIA.EDU To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: RE: COMMENTS ON RQ4 SURVEY DAMAGE/ARMOR Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1993 21:48:35 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <37CC756560F@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Thanks for the comments - Javelins - this is how RQ2 and RQIII rated javelin damage - the most reasonable rationalization I can come up with this is that from what experience I've had with jo and so fighting (Japanese staff and spear), you almost never dare fully commit yourself to a thrust (with all your weight and strength behind it) because if you miss you are helpless. Throwing a javelin at a nearby opponent is a different matter, as even if you miss, you have time to recover your balance from a full windup and followthru style throw. Javelins are also thrown overhand, while all 1H spear use I've seen is short underhand thrusts, which have little force behind them. But to tell you the truth, I just don't know enough about javelins to say if this is really accurate. I know a few medieval and ancient weapons buffs that I might be able to ask, though. Overlapping armor - it's also meant to cover wearing ringmail under greaves or cuirboilli greaves over ring or chain, but your suggestion is probably a good one - specifically mention which armors this covers. Thanks again, Oliver  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA05561; Sun, 4 Jul 93 21:03:09 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA20410; Sun, 4 Jul 93 22:02:55 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Sun, 4 Jul 93 22:02:26 EDT From: JOVANOVIC@CUCCFA.CCC.COLUMBIA.EDU To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: RE: COMMENTS ON RQ4 SURVEY DAMAGE/ARMOR Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1993 22:01:42 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <37CFF9D669C@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> (Sorry about that last one - didn't finish the part in between). I'll post a summary of the first batch of responses to the list (no names, just votes) sometime Monday, since I thought others might be curious as to what people were thinking. Oliver  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA11741; Mon, 5 Jul 93 08:14:38 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA29514; Mon, 5 Jul 93 09:14:16 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 5 Jul 93 9:13:54 EDT From: R.Hogg@bradford.ac.uk To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RQIV Survey (Damage) Date: Mon, 5 Jul 93 14:10:14 BST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <38830E25E94@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Hi sorry this is a bit late but i have been away. Answers to questions on Damage i) No : I like the idea of simplification , but there are a lot of good rq2/3 modules with wapons , db bonus etc already fixed , also i feel it removes the edge some wepons have i.e 1H daggers. ii) Yes: Dispite some of the previous arguments , as players can get confused and generaly only use one table anyway. you may wish to offer the player an option of a high shot at no/minimal penalty 10+1d10, 2d8+4 for location. I do have a couple of questions regarding charactor generation and have written a set of notes but i will only post them if you have time to read them. Yours Boss ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EMail Boss@bradford.ac.uk SMail Boss , Bradford University Computer Centre , Richmond Rd , Bradford West Yorkshire , England , BD7 1DP phone +44 274 383318 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA01644; Tue, 6 Jul 93 00:23:54 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA11987; Tue, 6 Jul 93 01:23:19 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Tue, 6 Jul 93 1:23:08 EDT From: JOVANOVIC@CUCCFA.CCC.COLUMBIA.EDU To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: RQIV Damage Survey Summary Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1993 1:22:08 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <398574D237D@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> The recent RQIV damage survey went out to 92 individuals on the Internet or CompuServe that have expressed interest in RQIV, as well as the RQIV Playtest List. As of Sunday, I've received 29 responses. To summarize, they were: Question 1 - New damage proposal for damage bonus, weapons and armor. Yes 23 No 6 Question 2 - New hit location proposal, with one merged table. Yes 20 No 9 Roughly 1/3 of the people responding to either question (both those answering Yes and No) had additional comments, concerns or reservations. Some of those mentioned by more than one person: Even with a negative damage bonus one should still do at least one point of damage. Consider making the old melee and missile hit location tables options. Most of the people answering no to either question appeared to be primarily concerned with their effect on the compatibility of published scenarios. I actually found the results rather interesting, because I expected a far more negative response. I'll post an updated summary at the end of the week (by which time I expect perhaps 50 response, a sample of reasonable size). Thanks again to all those that have responded to date. Oliver  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA15850; Tue, 6 Jul 93 11:52:26 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01127; Tue, 6 Jul 93 12:51:52 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Tue, 6 Jul 93 12:51:29 EDT From: "Loren Miller" To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: CORE RULES: belief systems Date: 6 Jul 93 12:49:19 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <3A3D1CC3E20@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> IMHO, the feature of RQ in glorantha that really sets it apart from other roleplaying games is the cult system. Initiates of various cults have well defined personalities. Storm Bulls are different from Eurmali are different from Ulerians. Only recently did I realize that the primary difference between RQ2 and RQ3 that made RQ3 less satisfying was the de-emphasis on cults and cult personalities. I'd like to see an increased emphasis on cult personalities and the belief systems of various religions for RQ4. I think this should be core rules, as it is far more important to me than, for instance, the skills taught by various cults. If I know that Etyries merchants are greedy and mercenary then I'll know all I need to about the skills they teach. If I know that Orlanthi are restless and possess a complex code of honor then I know how to play them. The problem is that RQ3 lacked this kind of information in the core rules, and it wasn't even very clear in GOG. I'd like to see something in RQ that emphasizes this part of the game. It should be in the core rules. It doesn't matter to me whether it is mechanical or not. If it were mechanical, perhaps it would be something like the cult points that somebody else mentioned in the daily recently. If it were not mechanical, it might only need summary stories of whichever person was the primary role model in any cult or religion. That role model would define the actions of "good" people, and from that I know how to play characters from various societies in a gloranthan or non-gloranthan RQ game. -- +++++++++++++++++++++++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 AA16655; Tue, 6 Jul 93 12:12:31 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01774; Tue, 6 Jul 93 13:11:52 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Tue, 6 Jul 93 13:11:30 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: CORE RULES: belief systems Date: Tue, 6 Jul 93 13:12:06 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <3A426E96909@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> I agree. This weekend we were discussing (at my house) what made the RQ II rules good (in an attempt to get some of that goodness into the sorcery rules). The consensus was that a key thing was the interaction of the rules with the society, particularly the cult system. It was Cults of Prax that really kicked off our intensive RQ phase. - Paul  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA21547; Tue, 6 Jul 93 13:30:18 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA04902; Tue, 6 Jul 93 14:29:50 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Tue, 6 Jul 93 14:29:19 EDT From: Carl Fink To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: CORE RULES: belief syste Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1993 14:29:39 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <3A573E02848@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Subject: CORE RULES: belief systems [Loren's entire message deleted for space] Loren, that's an excellent point and I agree completely. I never thought of it that way, but now that you point it out it's as clear as day. Thanks.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA08107; Tue, 6 Jul 93 19:28:54 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA16739; Tue, 6 Jul 93 20:28:24 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Tue, 6 Jul 93 20:27:59 EDT From: burt@ptltd.com (Burton Choinski) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: CORE RULES -- question Date: Tue, 6 Jul 93 20:24:38 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <3AB6E00058E@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Has anything been done to figure STR into encumberance when determining how it affects skills? At present a STR 3 wimp and an STR 18 hulk each suffer a loss of 30 ENC when wearing full plate. This doesn't seem right to me, but then I never wore armor. I have been using a house rule where the first STR of encumberance is free, then consider it as stated in the draft rules. So in the above case, the wimp feels 27 ENC of skill loss, the hulk feels only 12 ENC of loss. This freebie ENC counts toward total ENC, not per-item. It does allow swashbuckler types to use a rapier and ligt armor with minimal effects on skill. -- Burton  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA11605; Tue, 6 Jul 93 22:05:13 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA19440; Tue, 6 Jul 93 23:04:49 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Tue, 6 Jul 93 23:04:17 EDT From: curtiss@netcom.com (Curtis Shenton) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: CORE RULES: belief systems Date: Tue, 6 Jul 93 20:05:17 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <3AE0A02704D@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> I agree with Loren's summary of what's needed to avoid the bland feel of RQIII. I'm not to much in favor of mechanics to reflect things liek culture but I do think this information needs to be an integral part of the core rules. -- 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 AA15279; Wed, 7 Jul 93 01:09:59 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA22272; Wed, 7 Jul 93 02:09:33 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 7 Jul 93 2:09:08 EDT From: curtiss@netcom.com (Curtis Shenton) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Magic in general Date: Tue, 6 Jul 93 23:09:57 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <3B11D8A3F81@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Does Glorantha really have just three magic systems? It seems to me that we may be going about the sorcery discussion the wrong way. Looking back through GoG it's pretty obvious alot of magic systems in their really didn't fit neatly into the three magic systems we have now. Is the magic granted by Godyuna really so closely related to the magic of the Mostali? Is the Path of Immanent Mastery really divine magic? Just what does sorcery mean anyway? The magic system of the Mostali, Westerners, the East Isles, and the Black Arkat trolls is pretty wide ranging. And then what about Lunar Magic? And the dragon magic the dragonnewts use. Maybe we do need a seperate _Magic of Glorantha_ book. Trying to shoehorn all these diverse magic systems into the label "sorcery" is starting to bother me. The way I see it there are three ways to do magic. One is get magic from the gods(divine magic), another is to use magic from the spirit world(spirit magic), and finally their is magic that taps into the ambient "magical" laws of the universe. Except I'm not so sure that's what sorcery is. And where does lunar and dragon magic fit into this? Anyway I'm rambling but if anyone has thoughts on the metaphysics of magic I'd be interested to hear what you have to say. -- 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 AA15880; Wed, 7 Jul 93 01:49:04 -0500 Return-Path: <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA22686; Wed, 7 Jul 93 02:48:49 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 7 Jul 93 2:48:14 EDT From: Nick Brooke <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: God Learner Date: 07 Jul 93 02:46:33 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <3B1C4EB0846@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Curtis 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 AA25174; Wed, 7 Jul 93 09:52:15 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA06717; Wed, 7 Jul 93 10:51:59 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 7 Jul 93 10:51:24 EDT From: burt@ptltd.com (Burton Choinski) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Magic in general Date: Wed, 7 Jul 93 10:48:22 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <3B9D3485030@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Loren comments on Magic... -------------- The main problem with using this kind of description for meta-rules about the powers of magic is that we have no guidelines for what X mp or Y POW can do. We know roughly what X STR can produce, regardless of the skills used with the STR. We don't know what X POW can do when exercised or sacrificed. If in fact there is a project to write a comprehensive RQ Magic Book then I think the metarules to cover what can be done with how much POW should be the first thing worked out for it, and they should be included just like the guidelines for making cults were included in Cults of Prax. -------------- If such a "baseline system" for magic is developed, then each cult is effectively "bending" the rules in the areas of it's god's powers. Thus while the standard "1d6 damage per point of divine MP, 1d3 per point of spirit MP or Sorcery MP" rule might apply to everyone, Humacti get 2d6 per divine point and 1d6 per spirit point, just 'cus of the two death runes that represent them. (note: above meta rule based on the divine "Lightning" spell, and the fact that 1 Divine MP = 2 Spirit or Sorcery MP) -- Burton  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA25819; Wed, 7 Jul 93 10:08:11 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA07538; Wed, 7 Jul 93 11:07:54 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 7 Jul 93 11:07:18 EDT From: curtiss@netcom.com (Curtis Shenton) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Magic in general Date: Wed, 7 Jul 93 8:08:12 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <3BA16D61936@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> I think Loren's right and yocould create one set of meta rules for magic in general and then get more specific for the sub systems. I for one find this to be a very appealing idea. But I'm not sure how well this fits in with everyone's idea of Glorantha. > > If in fact there is a project to write a comprehensive RQ Magic Book > then I think the metarules to cover what can be done with how much POW > should be the first thing worked out for it, and they should be > included just like the guidelines for making cults were included in > Cults of Prax (one of the best features in any RQ2 publication). I'd > also like to see a worksheet for "magic system creation" but then I'm > fanatic about worksheets. YMMV. Worksheets can be handy if done right. And I'm starting to come round to the idea mentioned earlier that Sorcery shouldn't be in the Core Rules but done seperatley. Except I think the Core Rules should have a bit of coverage of all three main magic types, after all their are a couple of published scenarios now with Sorcery. But let's only put a very basic set of rules for all three magic systems and then expand on all of them later. After all how much can we really fit in this main book anyways. If we did a Magic Book we could explain how Sorcery works in general(if there really is such an animal) and then explain Mostali Sorcery in the contect of their culture a bit more since we'd have more room. Plus this would allow us to cover systems like Dragon Magic, Godyuna magic, Lunar Magic, and other weird stuff I don't even know about. :) > > 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 AA26189; Wed, 7 Jul 93 10:16:15 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA08037; Wed, 7 Jul 93 11:15:56 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 7 Jul 93 11:15:24 EDT From: curtiss@netcom.com (Curtis Shenton) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Magic in general Date: Wed, 7 Jul 93 8:16:14 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <3BA38A04548@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> > > If such a "baseline system" for magic is developed, then each cult is > effectively "bending" the rules in the areas of it's god's powers. Thus > while the standard "1d6 damage per point of divine MP, 1d3 per point of > spirit MP or Sorcery MP" rule might apply to everyone, Humacti get 2d6 per > divine point and 1d6 per spirit point, just 'cus of the two death runes that > represent them. > > (note: above meta rule based on the divine "Lightning" spell, and the fact that > 1 Divine MP = 2 Spirit or Sorcery MP) > -- Burton > I see nothing wrong with that. A general rule that 1MP=1d6 unless... with exceptions for gods like Humakt. The trouble is I'm not sure how well things will fit into this framework. We'd either have to redo lots of magic, but we probably will redo sorcery at anyrate, or throw in lots of rules to cover wierd examples of magic used before. -- 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 AA23415; Wed, 7 Jul 93 09:21:19 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA05272; Wed, 7 Jul 93 10:20:56 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 7 Jul 93 10:20:27 EDT From: "Loren J. Miller" To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Magic in general Date: 07 Jul 1993 10:22:56 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <3B94E563210@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> I'm afraid I'm going to incite more "god learner" accusations with this but it's hard for me to see more than one system for magic in glorantha and in runequest. The differences between divine magic and spirit magic are pretty obscure, especially at the borders where spirits and gods meet. Sorcery is much like spirit magic, except for the social stuff (skills, vows, etc) that's attached to it. In fact the only system for magic that I see in runequest is that people can produce changes in the world by flexing or spending their will. Sounds like the old time Golden Dawn folks talking. If you spend your will that's represented as permanent power expenditure, and flexing the will is magic point expenditure. The main problem with using this kind of description for meta-rules about the powers of magic is that we have no guidelines for what X mp or Y POW can do. We know roughly what X STR can produce, regardless of the skills used with the STR. We don't know what X POW can do when exercised or sacrificed. If in fact there is a project to write a comprehensive RQ Magic Book then I think the metarules to cover what can be done with how much POW should be the first thing worked out for it, and they should be included just like the guidelines for making cults were included in Cults of Prax (one of the best features in any RQ2 publication). I'd also like to see a worksheet for "magic system creation" but then I'm fanatic about worksheets. YMMV. 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 AA27410; Wed, 7 Jul 93 10:34:47 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA09225; Wed, 7 Jul 93 11:34:24 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 7 Jul 93 11:33:53 EDT From: burt@ptltd.com (Burton Choinski) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Magic in general Date: Wed, 7 Jul 93 11:30:23 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <3BA86B611B3@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Curtis notes: ------- I see nothing wrong with that. A general rule that 1MP=1d6 unless... with exceptions for gods like Humakt. The trouble is I'm not sure how well things will fit into this framework. We'd either have to redo lots of magic, but we probably will redo sorcery at anyrate, or throw in lots of rules to cover wierd examples of magic used before. ------- The first task is determining the ground rules before you can bend 'em. I am trying to do such a thing with my suggested sorcery rules, and it's pretty tricky. Lots of spells will gain in power, many will lose effectiveness, and others will just be completely changed. I suppose the first step would be to reverse engineer the general effects (1MP does what) from the spells in the book, line up similar effects and find the common baseline for that effect, keeping in mind the source of the spell if the effect is REAL off base. Once that is there, holes could perhaps be filled in. Then, once we have the rules, we can tweak them to fit the cult magics. -- Burton  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA28010; Wed, 7 Jul 93 10:48:21 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA10034; Wed, 7 Jul 93 11:47:24 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 7 Jul 93 11:46:48 EDT From: curtiss@netcom.com (Curtis Shenton) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: God Learner Date: Wed, 7 Jul 93 8:47:49 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <3BABFB4242C@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> > > Curtis is a God Learner: burn him!! > Ha! I'm no God Learner. But Nick's an a Riddler! Burn him! And I can prove it, who else but a riddler would end an email with a riddle? And if "Who were the Red Goddesses parents?" isn't a riddle then I don't know what is. Not that I know what riddles are mind you. :) -- 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 AA28091; Wed, 7 Jul 93 10:50:32 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA10230; Wed, 7 Jul 93 11:50:10 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 7 Jul 93 11:49:34 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Magic in general Date: Wed, 7 Jul 93 11:50:23 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <3BACAFF1437@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Paul Reilly , replying to Curtis. Glorantha has dozens of magic systems, impossible to fully represent in the game. The idea of presenting the overall rules is to make a fairly flexible metasystem that can model most of the other systems. I tend to think there should be four basic systems, plus exceptions and non-human systems. Four basic systems: Western sorcery, developed back in the Brithini vs. Vadeli days and since adapted and modified. Mostali sorcery could fit this overall pattern as well - perhaps they built the Brithini or vice versa. In any case this is the old "World Machine" pattern. Spirit Magic: As the World Machine was broken, Glorantha was invaded by the blessing (or disease) known as 'free will'. Beings were 'ensouled'. Shamanism uses this for its magical effects. Divine Magic: The gods who agreed to the Compromise set the overall pattern for divine magic and this affects even those who did not initially participate in the compromise, e.g. Black Fang, etc. Eastern Magic: Originally stemming out of the Eastern stem land of Vithaela, Eastern magic is hard for Westerners to understand. ----------------- Nonhuman magic: Darkness Magic: Based upon eating things and gaining their powers and the basic strength of Darkness, this is old and strong. Darkness magic includes the power to eat things and grow an extension with their qualities, as for example in our campaign Uz "armoring enchantments" work byu eating lead or chitin and plating it out on the bones and skin. Once this was a basic Darkness power, now it can be accessed through Rune magics. Grower "magic": Their special plants appear magical to most outsiders. Mee Voralan "magic": Similar to our own chemistry and microbiology, the great fungus colonies can grow special chemicals, spores, or whatever out of themselves. This combines aspects of Darkness and Aldryami magic, as is appropriate. Maker "magic": Not just sorcery but also the application of the rules of the world to produce mechanistic effects (like cannon). Mostali are major practitioners but many humans also practice this. Few other races are heavily into it. Chaos: Fundamentally opposed to most of Glorantha, Chaos leaches away the natural laws (or life force) that allow existence. Striking effects can be produced as the laws of Glorantha are locally violated. Jelmre magic: Emotion based. Dragon Magic: Different from everyone else's. In our campaign the part of a dragon that you can see is only a small part of the whole, which extends outside of Glorantha. More later, paul  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA28947; Wed, 7 Jul 93 11:07:34 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA11159; Wed, 7 Jul 93 12:07:17 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 7 Jul 93 12:06:42 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Magic in general Date: Wed, 7 Jul 93 12:07:27 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <3BB14293D5B@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Replying to Loren: We are trying to do a bit of this, balancing long-duration sorcery against Enchantments and Divine Magic, and short duration sorcery against spirit magic. >what can be done with how much POW >should be the first thing worked out for it Agree. Do Enchantments seem about right to you? The proposed 1 MP = 1d3 (or 1d6??) damage is, in my opinion, not necessarily a good 'universal' measure. In many cases this is about right, but just as a child can kill someone with a hatpin if she knows where to stick it, the amount of mana doesn't necessarily determine a complex quantity like 'damage'. More later (rushed), Paul  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA09408; Wed, 7 Jul 93 14:46:14 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA20989; Wed, 7 Jul 93 15:45:50 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 7 Jul 93 15:45:15 EDT From: "Loren Miller" To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: COMBAT: modified combat options Date: 7 Jul 93 14:31:36 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <3BEB8B61CC3@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> I'd like to see the combat options go this way instead of the current way. I think this is more of a RQ Lite way of representing combat options, especially since it gets rid of much of the rules dirt that I think encumbers the present combat option rules. Before committing an attack or defense, represented in the game by rolling the dice, state which special option your character wants. For instance if you want to trip your opponent, choose the Knockback option, or if you want to hit him in the leg, choose the Aimed Blow option. Upon a successful attack you may do normal damage to your opponent. Upon a special success you may do normal damage as modified by the special option you chose. Upon a critical success you may do normal damage as modified by the special option you chose, and by a second special or critical option of your choice. SPECIAL COMBAT OPTIONS Knockback (Str vs Siz to knock back 1m/5 pts damage or knockdown) Knockout (Semi-lethal Damage vs Con to stun and knockout opponent) Slash (max weapon damage) Crush (damage bonus x2, up to +10 total) Impale (weapon damage x2) Aimed Shot (hit a stated hit location) Disarm (Str or Dex contest) Break Weapon Entangle Feint (opponent loses next defense) Flurry (get a free attack) Guard (get a free parry) Weave (get a free dodge) Indirect (weapon takes no damage to AP) Standfast (get a free brace against knockback) CRITICAL COMBAT OPTIONS Armor Piercing (halve defensive armor) More complete definitions of the various special options could be included below, to keep the rules lawyers happy. -- +++++++++++++++++++++++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 AA07161; Wed, 7 Jul 93 14:06:05 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA19268; Wed, 7 Jul 93 15:05:25 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 7 Jul 93 15:05:08 EDT From: David Cheng To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Thoughts on Magic (Crosslisted) Date: Wed, 7 Jul 93 15:04:56 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <3BE0C584E2F@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> I have read (skimmed) the sorcery discussion for weeks. I can hold my opinions to myself no longer... Tidbits about Magic I have picked up over the years: DRAGON EMPEROR WORSHIP The Dragon Emperor (currently Godyuna) is a focus of worship for the whole populace. The Exarchs are his high priests (DC's terminology). The people worship Godyuna, and he becomes more magically powerful. There are inefficiencies, however, so in RQ terms, perhaps he only gets 1 POW per 100 worshippers, or per 1000; whatever. Still, he gets a buttload of power, leading to the quote (paraphrase) that he is the most magically powerful human in Glorantha. Now, Godyuna has all this magical energy to play with. As a good ruler must, he delegates a good bit of his "magical responsibility" to the Exarchs. He shares some of the magical power he's accumulated. By using the magic Godyuna shares with them, they keep the magical irrigation systems working, the magical bridges suspended, etc. (Aside: I think that in Dragon Pass terms, each Exarch ought to have a 10-20 Magic Factor; quite a bit in a game where 6 is very tough, and the Red Emperor has 12, if my memory serves me correctly.) Kralorelan magic always struck me as awkward. Not the Emperor worship thing: the magic where everyone can spend POW for sorcerous effects. I would strongly be in favor of coming up with something different, which better captured the "magic of the East." RUNE MAGIC A worshipper invokes rune magic. For that instant, he _becomes_ the god. That is what allows him to do it in the first place. Without the initiate-link to his god, he can't hope to pull this off. JRUSTELI MAGICAL PHILOSOPHY By my understanding, Curtis Shenton and Loren Miller are both correct. There are not only three magic systems, there are more. But, there is only one magical meta-system. Loren's comment today is not God Learner, it's anti-God Learner. It is the GLs who originally classified all the things they found into neat, tidy categories. Mostali sorcery is not the same as Kralorelan magic, but because they operate on principals more in common with each other than with Spirit or Divine Magic, they are classified together. >From what OJ has told me: There is one meta-magic. The individual practitioner learns to manipulate it in a certain way. However, in doing so, he loses the magical sensitivity to do magic in other ways. That is why Sorcerers can't be good Shamen. I guess this also means that there are as many magic systems are there are individual practitioners... * BUT * I for one do not want to see a meta-magic system. I am a God Learner Sympathizer, and I am perfectly comfortable having Spirit Magic, Divine Magic and Sorcery. I like calling them separate things and identifying their differences concretely. The idea of one magic system instead of three is so heretical that I think the game it appeared in might not be RQ any more. Couple this with changing the skill resolution and weapon damage systems too much, and you've got a completely different game. This might not be such a bad idea. I might play such a game, but I might not. I don't know right now. But, I would buy it if it were a Gloranthan game. -David Cheng (The RQ-Con Pre-Reg book is coming along nicely...) p.s. I apologize for the choppiness of the post. It was written in bits and pieces, and it shows.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA08942; Wed, 7 Jul 93 14:35:27 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA20616; Wed, 7 Jul 93 15:35:07 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 7 Jul 93 15:34:32 EDT From: David Cheng To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Magic in general Date: Wed, 7 Jul 93 15:34:43 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <3BE8AF70F23@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> # # If such a "baseline system" for magic is developed, then each cult is # effectively "bending" the rules in the areas of it's god's powers. Thus # while the standard "1d6 damage per point of divine MP, 1d3 per point of # spirit MP or Sorcery MP" rule might apply to everyone, Humacti get 2d6 per # divine point and 1d6 per spirit point, just 'cus of the two death runes that # represent them. # # (note: above meta rule based on the divine "Lightning" spell, and the fact that # 1 Divine MP = 2 Spirit or Sorcery MP) # -- Burton # I would be very careful about this logic. The God Learners "labeled" Humakt with two Death runes because they say he "owns" the rune. Showing two Death Runes does not mean he has twice as much. Who is to say that Humakt's Death magic shouldn't be 10x / 100x /1000x more powerful than (your choice of other god here). Besides game balance, that is.... -DC  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA13947; Wed, 7 Jul 93 16:22:30 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25062; Wed, 7 Jul 93 17:22:08 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 7 Jul 93 17:21:34 EDT From: "Roderick Robertson, SC1-5, x52936" To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: COMBAT: modified combat options Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1993 14:03 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <3C0541B00A9@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Loren Suggests: >Before committing an attack or defense, represented in the game by >rolling the dice, state which special option your character wants. >For instance if you want to trip your opponent, choose the Knockback >option, or if you want to hit him in the leg, choose the Aimed Blow >option. Upon a successful attack you may do normal damage to your >opponent. Upon a special success you may do normal damage as modified >by the special option you chose. Upon a critical success you may do >normal damage as modified by the special option you chose, and by a >second special or critical option of your choice. ====================================================================== Yes, BUT, Some weapons/attacks are better at some options than others, and this would need to be pointed out somewhere (Crush with a spear?) Additionally, some weapons *cannot* do some of the options (Impale with a Lasso?) I'd like it better if the option carried a skill penalty, but if properly performed, would take effect (penalty could be dependant on the option, the weapon, or a combination). So, for example: Knockback -20 Sw, -40 Th (Str vs Siz to knock back 1m/5 pts damage or knockdown) Knockout -20 Sw, -40 Th (Semi-lethal Damage vs Con to stun and knockout opponent) OR: 1H Mace -20 Knockback, -20 Knockout If the player announces "Knockback, my mace attack is 65", then a 45- would be a Knockback, 46+ would be failure, and Fumble would be increased by 1 (from 98 to 97 (or whatever)). I like criticals to automatically do the special option, if applicable (Knockback, Knockout, other "Roll" options), or do max damage if damaging, etc. In this way, we'd get people trying options that make sense to the weapon, rather than rules-lawyering: "Why can't I get a Slash from my Maul?" I would also rename Knockback to Knockdown, allowing staff trips, pulling off balance, etc., or have a "Trip" option. Another option: "Pulling the Blow" (Non-lethal damage if rolled under modified total, Full damage if between modified and unmodified skill) Defense Options get the same type of deal... 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 AA26245; Wed, 7 Jul 93 22:06:27 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA03391; Wed, 7 Jul 93 23:06:03 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 7 Jul 93 23:05:28 EDT From: curtiss@netcom.com (Curtis Shenton) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Thoughts on Magic (Crosslisted) Date: Wed, 7 Jul 93 20:06:35 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <3C610091F65@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> > > Kralorelan magic always struck me as awkward. Not the Emperor > worship thing: the magic where everyone can spend POW for > sorcerous effects. I would strongly be in favor of coming up with > something different, which better captured the "magic of the East." I quite agree. In fact more and more of the sorcery cultures are striking me as akward. Just what definition of sorcery are we using that can encompass the Mostali, the Malkioni, the East Isles, etc? > > > JRUSTELI MAGICAL PHILOSOPHY > By my understanding, Curtis Shenton and Loren Miller are both > correct. There are not only three magic systems, there are more. > But, there is only one magical meta-system. I quite agree. > > Loren's comment today is not God Learner, it's anti-God Learner. It > is the GLs who originally classified all the things they found into > neat, tidy categories. Mostali sorcery is not the same as Kralorelan > magic, but because they operate on principals more in common > with each other than with Spirit or Divine Magic, they are classified > together. Are they really that similar? I begin to think the reason the are seen as similar is because they were shoehorned into the same box, sorcery. Now I know someone who used to live up in SF and played with Greg and the Chaosium crowd. He said Greg didn't use the sorcery system in his game, he'd looked through i, didn't like it, and never bothered to learn how it worked. Now if this is still the case I think we can begin to start taking the random magic odds and ends that have gotten shoved into sorcery and start treating them as unique magic systems in their own right. > > >From what OJ has told me: > There is one meta-magic. The individual practitioner learns to > manipulate it in a certain way. However, in doing so, he loses the > magical sensitivity to do magic in other ways. That is why Sorcerers > can't be good Shamen. > > I guess this also means that there are as many magic systems are > there are individual practitioners... While I think any given shaman would have much more in common with any and all other shaman rather than with a sorceror I kind of like the idea that each individual is different. Maybe a meta magic system would allow us to create a structure where this is possible. I'd really like to run the idea that everyone has a proto fetch and each magic tradition uses it differently, the shaman awakens it, the sorceror binds it to this world as his Presence, and the priest uses it to tie a bond to his god. If this it true it would be a great starting place for a magic system that would be flexable enough to encompass the wide array of gloranthan magic. Look how many exceptions to the normal magic systems there have been. Loads of people have had odd magic powers. Rather than having to write a new rule/exception everytime someone uses a kind of magic that fits well into the gloranthan mythos but not the three RQ magic pigeon holes wouldn't it be nice to have a system that could encompass these things? > > * BUT * > I for one do not want to see a meta-magic system. I am a God > Learner Sympathizer, and I am perfectly comfortable having Spirit > Magic, Divine Magic and Sorcery. I like calling them separate things > and identifying their differences concretely. I don't see this as an argument about one system instead of three. I see this as an argument about contless systems instead of three. I'd like to see Spirit magic, Divine magic, and at least a token amount of "sorcery" in the Core Rules(I'd also liek RQ Lite but that's another argument) but mention that their are many, many other magical practices in Glorantha and these three are just the main ones in the area detailed so far. If the Core Rules were centered in Kraloria instead of Sartar I'd want Godunya magic, Dragon(dragonnewt at least) magic, and the East Isle variety of "Sorcery" and maybe spirit magic. And then a Magic Pack that would cover the meta rules for magic, how to personalize a magic user. the basics on many other magic systems, plus idea/suggestions for coming up with your own unique, reginal magic systems for your campaign. > > The idea of one magic system instead of three is so heretical that I > think the game it appeared in might not be RQ any more. Couple > this with changing the skill resolution and weapon damage systems > too much, and you've got a completely different game. > > This might not be such a bad idea. I might play such a game, but I > might not. I don't know right now. But, I would buy it if it were a > Gloranthan game. Hmm here's another interesting topic. What's the minimum in a game that you would need to be able to play Glorantha? Assuming it doesn't have to be RQ compatable how similar would it be to the current RQIV draft? > > -David Cheng > (The RQ-Con Pre-Reg book is coming along nicely...) > > -- 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 AA26281; Wed, 7 Jul 93 22:06:55 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA03405; Wed, 7 Jul 93 23:06:39 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 7 Jul 93 23:06:01 EDT From: Carl Fink To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Thoughts on Magic (Cross Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1993 23:06:38 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <3C6122F5D8E@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Subject: Divine Magic David Cheng writes: d>RUNE MAGIC d>A worshipper invokes rune magic. For that instant, he _becomes_ d>the god. That is what allows him to do it in the first place. d>Without d>the initiate-link to his god, he can't hope to pull this off. d> Okay, David, now how do you explain vampires and Thanatari? Or the fact that former initiates don't lose their divine magic? They just lose the ability to *re-use* Rune spells. As I've said dozens of times - when a person learns a Rune Spell, that's exactly what happens. In exchange for the Power sacrifice, the god *teaches the initiate a spell*. The spell is a spell, not divine intervention, not divine incarnation - it's a MAGIC SPELL! AAAAARGH! (Do you get the idea that I'm frustrated?) --- ~ SM 1.06 ----- ~  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA26829; Wed, 7 Jul 93 22:33:57 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA03849; Wed, 7 Jul 93 23:33:39 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 7 Jul 93 23:33:03 EDT From: David Cheng To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Thoughts on Magic (Cross Date: Wed, 7 Jul 93 23:33:17 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <3C684D345F1@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> # David Cheng writes: # # d>RUNE MAGIC # d>A worshipper invokes rune magic. For that instant, he _becomes_ # d>the god. That is what allows him to do it in the first place. # d>Without # d>the initiate-link to his god, he can't hope to pull this off. # d> # Okay, David, now how do you explain vampires and Thanatari? Or the # fact that former initiates don't lose their divine magic? They just # lose the ability to *re-use* Rune spells. # # As I've said dozens of times - when a person learns a Rune Spell, # that's exactly what happens. In exchange for the Power sacrifice, the # god *teaches the initiate a spell*. The spell is a spell, not divine # intervention, not divine incarnation - it's a MAGIC SPELL! # Carl, Sorry to get your blood pressure up. I see that we have a philosophical difference on the nature of Rune Magic. Vampires and Thanatari: The easy/obvious answer is they both tap into the energy of Chaos to "change the rules" of the divine relationship, allowing these foul entities to use rune magic they have no possible way of accessing. You and I have disagreed on this one on GEnie, too. I know that I'm not going to win you over. The trump card I've got is that it's Stafford who shared with me the "when you cast a divine spell you _become_ the god" idea. Whether he's changed his mind at this point, I don't know. Bottom Line: I like the Rune Power idea, and you don't. I can live with that. -David Cheng p.s. To anyone who wants a copy of the full Rune Power writeup: In response to a recent request, I've just uploaded it successfully to my mainframe account. Email me, and I can send you the text, no problem.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA28206; Wed, 7 Jul 93 23:38:31 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA04829; Thu, 8 Jul 93 00:38:14 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Thu, 8 Jul 93 0:37:37 EDT From: curtiss@netcom.com (Curtis Shenton) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Kidnapping Greg Date: Wed, 7 Jul 93 21:38:29 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <3C7987D574C@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Is anyone here going to Gen Con? It would be nice if we could track Greg down and bounce some ideas from this list off of him. Some of the ideas about magic have been just great but it would be really, really nice to know just what he thinks of them. Especially since he seems to keep changing his mind. :) -- 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 AA29537; Thu, 8 Jul 93 00:46:49 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA05895; Thu, 8 Jul 93 01:46:32 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Thu, 8 Jul 93 1:45:54 EDT From: Amazing Larry To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: COMBAT: melee round proposal Date: Thu, 08 Jul 1993 00:46:39 -0500 (CDT) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <3C8BC53012B@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Even though the outline of the RQ4 melee round seems simple (3 options and basically 3 phases), I have found it sort of awkward in implementing. Not really awkward, but mechanized, or promoting mechanized thinking. Below is my plan for a slightly stripped down and modified version of the RQ4 melee round. I guess my goals are to have the players need to remember a little less and to remove all kinds of little things going on each round that require more rules (e.g. disengaging, shifting, maneuvering). THREE POSSIBLE STATEMENTS OF INTENT AND EXAMPLES OF WHAT A PLAYER MIGHT SAY IN EACH SITUATION 2 actions, 0 moves ENGAGED: "I attack and parry." UNENGAGED: "I fire a couple of arrows." 1 action, 1 move ENGAGED: "I parry and fall back." or "I attack and move around him." UNENGAGED: "I move forward and attack." 0 actions, 2 moves ENGAGED: "I turn and flee!" or "I circle around her and run past." UNENGAGED: "I keep running." SEQUENCE OF THE MELEE ROUND 1. unengaged characters make their first move (by DEX) 2. actions (by SR) 3. engaged characters make their first move at 1/3 normal rate (by DEX) 4. characters who are making two moves make their second move (by DEX) 5. bookkeeping DEFINITIONS ACTIONS: attack, parry, dodge, fire missile weapon, cast spell. BY DEX: The order of events is from highest DEX to lowest DEX. However, anyone can wait for a lower DEX to act first. BY SR: The order of events is from lowest SR to highest SR. However, anyone can wait for a higher SR to act first. ENGAGED: A character is engaged whenever he starts a round next to an opponent whose movement rate is half his own or more. MOVEMENT RATE: Always (DEX+SIZ)/2 in meters for a humanoid character, unless engaged, in which case it is 1/3 this rate. ROUND: Approximately 6 seconds of time. COMMENTS STATEMENT OF INTENT: Statement of intent is done on a per phase basis. I think this can be done because players can only do two things per round. In the course of the round, they sort of "spend" their two actions. DISENGAGING: There are no disengaging rules. To disengage one can 1) make one action (hopefully defensive) and move away or 2) make no actions (leave yourself open to attack) and run away (i.e. move twice). SHIFTING: There are no shifting rules. Any engaged character who wants to shift must take an option with movement (e.g. parry and move, attack and move). Those who are not confident enough to only parry or only attack in a round will not move around much. ENGAGED MOVEMENT: Movement while engaged is around 4 m for humans. Turning in place is free movement (within reason). UNENGAGED MOVEMENT: Normal movement (interrupted by dodging or some other action) is around 11 m per round. Running movement (no time taken for other actions) is around 23 m per round for. MANEUVER: I once liked this idea, but now I am thinking that if the round is designed right, those who are skilled in combat will be able to move (or have a better chance of doing so without being nailed). Those unskilled in combat will find it safest to stand and hack. EXAMPLE: BELOW ARE SKELETON DESCRIPTIONS OF HOW TWO ROUNDS MIGHT GO: FIRST MOVE, UNENGAGED GM: You hear a shuffling and clicking noises. Player 1: No move. Player 2: I stand and wait too. Player 3: I move forward. GM: You move forward and you see a hulking mass lumbering up to you. ACTION Player 1: I scan around. Player 2: I cast a spell. Player 3: I attack the hulking mass. (misses) GM to 1 and 2: Rocks come flying your way, spend time to dodge them? Player 1: No. Player 2: Yes. FIRST MOVE, UNENGAGED (Not used because no one was engaged at beginning of round) GM: The 9 rocks missed, but you notice they are all releasing smoke. SECOND MOVE Player 1: I run away, yelling. Player 2: I run too...but I can't! (he already did two things) Player 3: Sigh. FIRST MOVE, UNENGAGED Player 1: I keep running. Player 2: I start running. Wait for me! GM: And 3 cannot run because he is engaged. ACTION Player 3: I do nothing so I can turn and flee. GM: Lucky for you, it misses. FIRST MOVE, UNENGAGED Player 3: I move away from it. (1/3 movement) SECOND MOVE Player 1: I keep running. Player 2: I keep running. Player 3: I start running. GM to 3: The smoke is burning your eyes, better make a CONx5% roll. Please comment on this. Aside from missing details, is it sound? Can discussion of this offer any improvements to the RQ4 melee round? Ed Wallman@vax2.winona.msus.edu or AL  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA01744; Thu, 8 Jul 93 03:09:36 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA07235; Thu, 8 Jul 93 03:46:30 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Thu, 8 Jul 93 3:46:05 EDT From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Thoughts on Magic (Cross Date: Thu, 08 Jul 93 00:36:29 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <3CABC403322@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Carl Fink writes: > Okay, David, now how do you explain vampires and Thanatari? Or the > fact that former initiates don't lose their divine magic? They just > lose the ability to *re-use* Rune spells. Or, alternatively, that what is really going on is effectively a transaction between the god and the worshiper that says, in effect, "I give you this Power and you owe me a selective form of assistence from time to time." The fact that the worshiper no longer has Power would not alter this relationship. I don't know that former initiates SHOULD maintain even non-reuseable spells, frankly. > > As I've said dozens of times - when a person learns a Rune Spell, > that's exactly what happens. In exchange for the Power sacrifice, the > god *teaches the initiate a spell*. The spell is a spell, not divine > intervention, not divine incarnation - it's a MAGIC SPELL! > And I, for one, don't particularly see that as a good model for what seems to be going on. > ------------------------------ shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) or qed!shadow The QED BBS -- (310)420-9327  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA07251; Thu, 8 Jul 93 19:10:53 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA11985; Thu, 8 Jul 93 20:10:30 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Thu, 8 Jul 93 20:09:56 EDT From: jjm@zycor.lgc.com (johnjmedway) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: This Magic Business ... Date: Thu, 8 Jul 93 19:10:10 CDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <3DB23082590@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> ... and the impending God-Learnen schism? Alas, I wish this had brewed up _last_ week. Then I could have gotten Stafford's feelings about this at Origins. >> >> Carl Fink >> >> >> >> As I've said dozens of times - when a person learns a Rune Spell, >> >> that's exactly what happens. In exchange for the Power sacrifice, the >> >> god *teaches the initiate a spell*. The spell is a spell, not divine >> >> intervention, not divine incarnation - it's a MAGIC SPELL! Count me as _another_ vote _against_ this view. ( Maybe this should be considered for the next net-survey? ) Whether we adopt David Cheng's Rune Power idea ( which may have some rationalization problems re: The Compromise ) or whether we adopt some other mechanism, we need to CHANGE DIVINE MAGIC I have ALWAYS felt that Rune/Divine Magic was the most broken magic system I'd seen ( o.k., except from T$R ). It does not _feel_ right. It feels too much like reaching into my Bat Utility Belt (TM) and pulling out my TrueSword gadget. This just doesn't seem very _Divine_ to me. >> Nick Brooke >> >> I'll second that, Wayne. It feels intuitively wrong. I would greatly >> prefer to sort out the flawed RQ2 Thanatar / Vivamort mechanics so as to >> allow a new perspective on Rune Magic, rather than adopt this niggling >> method. If we make Spirit Magic more animistic (as discussed earlier when >> Paul Reilly proposed a new model), why shouldn't we make Divine Magic more >> theistic at the same time? Spirit magic which involves spirits seems perfectly appropriate. In ancient times people appealed to spirits for everything, and on Glorantha such appeals would be answered. I'm all in favor of tuning Spirit Magic in this sense. Regarding Sorcery, I've shut up, and decided to go with the flow. I liked RQ3 Sorcery, but never used it for Gloranthan cultures. Almost everyone seems to agree that it is broken and needs reworking to make sense in Glorantha, and that it is a Big Deal. I'm out-numbered, by people who really seem to care, and who seem to know about what they're talking. So, OK, I'll go along. I think it might be time for you to bite a similar bullet, Carl. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 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 AA22462; Fri, 9 Jul 93 07:43:54 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA26204; Fri, 9 Jul 93 08:42:23 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Fri, 9 Jul 93 8:41:42 EDT From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: COMBAT: melee round proposal Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1993 10:03:20 MEZ Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <3E7ABA80631@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Just a short note of protest: I hate systems that proclaim static combat, i.e. combat where the characters either move or act. With the strike rank system RQ had a mechanic to cope with this problem, if not perfectly, so at least sufficiently so. This new system of "either move or parry" is crap! I cannot imagine any character not completely gone berserk who moves about in combat without dodging, and who stands stock still when attacking and parrying in one round. My personal combat experience, although limited, taught me the opposite. So either state that any melee attack or parry includes movement of up to 3 meters (seems realistic to me, opinions?), or STOP COUNTING MOVEMENT AS COMBAT ACTION! I'm quite happy with the strike rank system, which is less burocratical with its predictable sequence than e.g. the "unspeakable XX&X" system of rolling initiative each round. I think that a maneuver roll to determine advantages after movement and combat is ok, but it should be related to the overall fighting skill, not necessarily a separate skill. The most serious problem I see with the strike rank system is that it still is limited by the round. I'd advocate a continuous system, where begun actions can be carried on in the next round, no matter what kind of action they are (magic, missile fire, melee). In an open system weapon sill ought to be taken into account as well as DEX, but the general system wouldn't change. -- Joerg Baumgartner rq4@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA19793; Fri, 9 Jul 93 07:03:53 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25352; Fri, 9 Jul 93 08:03:36 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Fri, 9 Jul 93 8:02:57 EDT From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: This Magic Business ... Date: Fri, 09 Jul 93 04:35:31 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <3E7064B7B02@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Well, understand that I'm coming from a different position than probably everyone else in this discussion; I'm not that much of a Glorantha fan (yes, I know, now that its out I'll have the Culture Police at my door any minute). I use RQ primarily for original campaigns, and that's what I'm looking for in the revision; not things that will make it more Glorantha-like (though if they can do that too, all the better--I recognize that most RQ fans ARE primarily Glorantha fans, and that RQIV is going to sell on that basis) but what will make it generally a better system. Currently, I don't see that much reason to fool with either the divine or spirit magics other than the situation Curtis expressed--its pretty obvious that more varieties of magical tradition are possible than the three in RQIII, and it may be desireable to find a way to express that in the rules with out the sort of baroqueness present in the Dragon Emperor or Red Moon Goddess cults. Sorcery is a different matter: I thought RQ3 sorcery was way overpowered in the way it handled long duration effects, but I don't really like the current version much, either: it makes the ritual version a joke if you aren't using POW, and too good a trick if you are. ------------------------------ shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) or qed!shadow The QED BBS -- (310)420-9327  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA19803; Fri, 9 Jul 93 07:03:56 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25355; Fri, 9 Jul 93 08:03:42 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Fri, 9 Jul 93 8:03:00 EDT From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Reply To OJ's Survey Date: Fri, 09 Jul 93 04:44:12 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <3E7070B14CB@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> My feelings on the survey were that the first question, the armor/damage bonus/weapon damage change were good in theory, not so good in execution. First off, I think a big fixed bonus is a bad idea. Among other things, it means a large entity can never graze you; fairly early on, any hit at all cripples you. I don't think this is a good thing. Second, I think the change in values has some problems. While it's currently too easy to maim someone, the changed numbers make it basically impossible to kill someone outright. I realize the Fourth edition is trying to move away from the over-lethality of RQIII, but I find it disturbing that a critical blow to the head with a greatsword can't kill you outright. Is it really necessary to go to this level of "We aren't going to kill characters"? I mean, we're talking about a system where healing magic is almost endemic; it's not like the bleeding rules are going to cause many deaths in most cases; are we back to the "No one ever dies" school here? Thirdly, remember that one of the fuctions of all those added pips on weapons was to represent weapons with an advantage when it came to penetration...this seems to not be represented very well now. As to the second question...come on, people! Are we so lazy we can't keep track of two sets of hit location charts, when the majority of the time only one or the other will be in use for much of a combat? ------------------------------ shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) or qed!shadow The QED BBS -- (310)420-9327  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA19809; Fri, 9 Jul 93 07:03:59 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25358; Fri, 9 Jul 93 08:03:45 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Fri, 9 Jul 93 8:03:04 EDT From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: SPIRIT MAGIC, BC's SORCERY, RLG etc Date: Fri, 09 Jul 93 04:53:19 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <3E7071314C9@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> gal502@huxley.anu.edu.au (Graeme Lindsell) writes: > To David Cheng: The Rules Lawyer's Guide to RQ: well this is > one way of doing it I suppose.It may result in every group using its > own selection of optional rules, but then I'm sure each group has its > own house rules right now. I've never seen anyone play the pure published > RQIII rules. I would still like RQIV to be just one big book: there may be > an optional rule or two that almost everyone will play: if it is in a RLG, > then people will feel obliged to buy it. > Well, the way the wind's blowing in some areas, those of us who use RQIV for non-Gloranthan campaign may be stuck using some house rules anyway; I just hope we don't end up having to use TOO many of them. > ------------------------------ shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) or qed!shadow The QED BBS -- (310)420-9327  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA27253; Fri, 9 Jul 93 09:48:59 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01722; Fri, 9 Jul 93 10:48:30 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Fri, 9 Jul 93 10:47:54 EDT From: burt@ptltd.com (Burton Choinski) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: COMMENTS Date: Fri, 9 Jul 93 10:44:36 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <3E9C5487461@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Graeme Lindsell is back... ------------------------------------------------------------ | To Burton Choinski: Your new mechanics for sorcery look excellent: this | is the sort of system I wished they'd produced originally. One thing I | like is that the sorcerers now _have_ to be educated: the Studies would | be similiar to the Lores that the polytheistic cultures study, though | perhaps covering somewhat different areas: whereas Elf Lore tells you a | lot about elvish culture and personality, Elf Studies would have a lot | to say about anatomy and the structure of their minds. That's what I hoped to bring into it. I had to mull over the name for a bit before I decided on "studies". Your comment makes the concept much clearer then I think I presented it. | I would suggest that Studies give half skill in the equivalent Lore. Actually, I think they should follow the "skill helping skill" rules in the draft -- Add 1/5th your studies skill to the appropriate lore. Might as well use consistant mechanics. | The problems with spells such as Banish Air are a matter for play balance: | that's what this list is here to discuss. Those problems exist right now. And in mulling it over (and in typing my document up) I have decided that "Banish" and "Conjure" work differently from what I mentioned. "Banish" simply prevents that element from entering the affected area. It does not destroy the element. So a banish air around some poor soul's head just produces a bubble of no-air. Intrusive attacks of that element have a chance of popping the bubble using the resistance table. "Conjure" does not create the element, but instead draws it from the surrounding area. A "Conjure water" spell cast around someone will draw the moisture out of the air and any nearby pools and concentrate it on the target area. Conjured elements will form, but will not stay -- you need to multispell it with "Animate" or "form/set" to get it to stay around the target. I had figured on banish being temporal, and conjure as well. Perhaps Conjure fits best as an instant spell, and should be renamed to "Gather" (i.e. "Gather Water") | The "Enchant for Permanence": I had concluded that such a mechanic was | required for Paul's system, and was going to suggest it when I returned from | hols. I just decided the "enchant" mechanic was best made a seperate tool and able to be used as required. One could either "gather fire" quickly to light a campfire, or multispell it with a permanent form/set on a protected rod to make a perpetual torch. Or use "light" instead and make a flashlight. :) I see my system "devolving" into three domains -- the "physical", which deals with all the substance/element studies, the "meta-physical" which deals with the hazy forces of magic and damage, and "essential" which deals with matters of "species" and "object identity". There might be another grouping...I won't know until I finally get everything classified. | My only problem with this kind of enchantment is that it produces items | that are more like D&D magic items ie +2 swords, unlike the matrices | that are the RQ style of magic items. However, this type of item may be | more appropriate to the West than matrices: in most European stories I've | read, magical items tend to have virtues in and of themselves, rather than | allowing the owner to cast spells. I did not consider the "D&D" aspect. I was just concerened with making a more consistant, and more flexible means of devoloping new spells. | This sort of enchantment might explain the mass-produced magic swords of | the Clanking City, which are mentioned in one source as having a "permanent | Bladesharp 3" on them. A permanent Damage Boosting 3 can now be explained | in the game mechanics: the only question is where the Clanking City got all | of the Power. Perhaps we don't want to know... Scary. It fits too well. Perhaps the GL's had a version of TAP that distilled the drained attributes into POW instead of MP, leaving the victim a soulless husk. Nasty. Wayne Shaw comments, on the survey ------------------------------------------------------------ | My feelings on the survey were that the first question, the armor/damage | bonus/weapon damage change were good in theory, not so good in execution. | First off, I think a big fixed bonus is a bad idea. Among other things, | it means a large entity can never graze you; fairly early on, any hit at | all cripples you. I don't think this is a good thing. I plan to use a +2 = 1d3 conversion. Thus, a creature with a +10 bonus rolls 5d3. Easy to remember, and it keeps some randomeness. I also plan to allow my players (YES! I convinced them to go this way! I can also walk on water in my spare moments...:) to substitute 1d3 for any or all +2 (or -2) values. So, one person might want to just use his pure +4, while another might want 1d3+2, and another might want +2d3. | Second, I think the change in values has some problems. While it's | currently too easy to maim someone, the changed numbers make it basically | impossible to kill someone outright. I realize the Fourth edition is | trying to move away from the over-lethality of RQIII, but I find it | disturbing that a critical blow to the head with a greatsword can't kill | you outright. Crit Slashed GS = max(2d6) +2d6 = 12+2d6, or about 19 hits...that will burn just about anyone in my book. | As to the second question...come on, people! Are we so lazy we can't | keep track of two sets of hit location charts, when the majority of the | time only one or the other will be in use for much of a combat? Not lazy, we just hated the "limb-fest" the melee table has. We just use the missle table for both. -- Burton  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA04535; Fri, 9 Jul 93 12:05:59 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA07703; Fri, 9 Jul 93 13:05:31 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Fri, 9 Jul 93 13:04:53 EDT From: curtiss@netcom.com (Curtis Shenton) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: This Magic Business ... Date: Fri, 9 Jul 93 10:05:58 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <3EC0E6773D2@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> > > Well, understand that I'm coming from a different position than probably > everyone else in this discussion; I'm not that much of a Glorantha fan > (yes, I know, now that its out I'll have the Culture Police at my door > any minute). I use RQ primarily for original campaigns, and that's what > I'm looking for in the revision; not things that will make it more > Glorantha-like (though if they can do that too, all the better--I > recognize that most RQ fans ARE primarily Glorantha fans, and that RQIV > is going to sell on that basis) but what will make it generally a better > system. Currently, I don't see that much reason to fool with either the > divine or spirit magics other than the situation Curtis expressed--its > pretty obvious that more varieties of magical tradition are possible than > the three in RQIII, and it may be desireable to find a way to express > that in the rules with out the sort of baroqueness present in the Dragon > Emperor or Red Moon Goddess cults. I think if we were to do a magic expansion that explained a meta system for coming up with new types of magic that would be very handy for non Glorathan campaigns. > Sorcery is a different matter: I thought RQ3 sorcery was way overpowered > in the way it handled long duration effects, but I don't really like the > current version much, either: it makes the ritual version a joke if you > aren't using POW, and too good a trick if you are. Um, which current version are you talking about? I agree that RQIII was far to over powered. But I think any sort of system that allows for long term enchantments without spending POW is going to lead to the problem in Griffin island with Halcon somethingorother the sorceror from hell. I like the Presence/Twin idea and how it makes the sorceror choose between having spells already cast or being more versatile by not wrapping the POW up in long term effects. > > ------------------------------ > shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) or qed!shadow > The QED BBS -- (310)420-9327 > -- 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 AA18837; Fri, 9 Jul 93 05:58:04 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA20896; Fri, 9 Jul 93 06:57:32 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Fri, 9 Jul 93 6:57:01 EDT From: gal502@huxley.anu.edu.au (Graeme Lindsell) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: SPIRIT MAGIC, BC's SORCERY, RLG etc Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1993 20:58:53 -0600 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <3E5EC405AD7@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Graeme here, back from his holidays with no net access: To Anthony Ragan: My variable spirit magic rules "fixing what ain't broke" Actually I agree with you, I don't have any real problems with the current spirit magic rules as they are . I propsed those rules since a fair few people seemed to want more variation in spirit magic, and these rules at least produce the same average results as the current fixed-value system; they could be introduced as optional rules without wildly changing the effectivenessof spirit magic. To Burton Choinski: Your new mechanics for sorcery look excellent: this is the sort of system I wished they'd produced originally. One thing I like is that the sorcerers now _have_ to be educated: the Studies would be similiar to the Lores that the polytheistic cultures study, though perhaps covering somewhat different areas: whereas Elf Lore tells you a lot about elvish culture and personality, Elf Studies would have a lot to say about anatomy and the structure of their minds. In the RQIII system, a sorcerer seemed a type of artisan: he had no real reason to learn Lore's; in fact it was as much a waste of time for a sorcerer to do so as it was for him to learn combat skills. I would suggest that Studies give half skill in the equivalent Lore. This leads to a situation I quite like: the Lhankor Mhy Initiates and Malkionist Sorcerers having a lot in common. I like the idea of the Lhankhor Mhy quietly opening a book of forbidden sorcery in their locked study, or an adept secretly running a small shrine to get that oh-so-handy runemagic. After all, aren't they both associated with the Law rune? They must be aspects of the same god, musn't they? :-) There would be a lot of Excommunications and Inquisitions from those dyed-in-the-wool conservatives with different views on the subject, of course. The problems with spells such as Banish Air are a matter for play balance: that's what this list is here to discuss. The "Enchant for Permanence": I had concluded that such a mechanic was required for Paul's system, and was going to suggest it when I returned from hols. The old-style system for sorcerous enchantments, where the points of POW in the items are added to the free INT of every casting would obviously be too powerful for Paul's system with the twin's POW as the limit. Instead, the points in the enchantment would add to a single spell. This would only be useful if the enchantment was added on to the limit of skill/10 for total manipulation, but even then I suspect most sorcerers would prefer to keep the POW in their twin rather than make enchantments out of it. If the POW in the enchantment went to making a permanent spell, which the sorcerer could then enhance if he wanted to by adding points from his own Twin, then a sorcerer has several motives for making an enchantment: i) Enchantments will last after the sorcerer dies. ii) The sorcerer can use them to exceed his skill limit for manipulation for that one casting. iii) They can't be dispelled: like an enchantment the runes and/or item has to be destroyed. My only problem with this kind of enchantment is that it produces items that are more like D&D magic items ie +2 swords, unlike the matrices that are the RQ style of magic items. However, this type of item may be more appropriate to the West than matrices: in most European stories I've read, magical items tend to have virtues in and of themselves, rather than allowing the owner to cast spells. This sort of enchantment might explain the mass-produced magic swords of the Clanking City, which are mentioned in one source as having a "permanent Bladesharp 3" on them. A permanent Damage Boosting 3 can now be explained in the game mechanics: the only question is where the Clanking City got all of the Power. Perhaps we don't want to know... To Paul R. > What happened to all the volume on this list? I went on holidays? Seriously, it is the middle of the year: a lot of people could be busy or on holidays. The maintainance rules look quite good, my only quibble is the sudden breakpoints, as David has already pointed out. I'm sure generic abilities with skill levels have been discussed before: I look back and see what the conclusions were before. To David Cheng: The Rules Lawyer's Guide to RQ: well this is one way of doing it I suppose.It may result in every group using its own selection of optional rules, but then I'm sure each group has its own house rules right now. I've never seen anyone play the pure published RQIII rules. I would still like RQIV to be just one big book: there may be an optional rule or two that almost everyone will play: if it is in a RLG, then people will feel obliged to buy it. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 AA18854; Fri, 9 Jul 93 05:59:21 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA20906; Fri, 9 Jul 93 06:59:01 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Fri, 9 Jul 93 6:58:20 EDT From: gal502@huxley.anu.edu.au (Graeme Lindsell) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Reply To OJ's Survey Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1993 21:00:27 -0600 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <3E5F29F7D0F@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> To Oliver Jovanovic The Survey: Firstly a) Yes. b) Yes. Secondly, my quibbles: i) Adjusting the weapon/armour tables downwards will increase the value weapon/armour bonuses: obviously I am in favour of increasing the worth of a strength bonus, but it will also make spells such as bladesharp and protection more effective. Is this a design aim? ii) Casting my minimaxing eye over the new weapon damage tables I note that the best weapons have changed: the scimitar is now the best 1-H sword in its damage (2d4), whereas before it was distinctly second rate compared to the broadsword and bastard sword. The bastard sword in particular has dropped from being the best 1-H weapon, with a very high strength requirement, to being merely average. (You can tell my character uses a bastard sword, can't you?) The heavy crossbow has also had a very sad comedown. I would suggest 2d6 damage rather than 1d10: it is a very heavy and slow-to-fire weapon, you've got to give people some reason to use it. iii) Why do the Battleaxe, 1-H mace, Heavy spear and 1-H bastard sword do more damage used 2-H? I thought this was already taken into account using the +2 to effective strength when using a 1-H weapon with 2 hands. After all they are the same weapon, which was the reasoning used in RQIII. A suggestion: make the rolled damage the same, but give a +5 effective strength in using a 1-H weapon two handed. With a +5 strength bonus, the character will always increase damage bonus by +1. Perhaps this should apply to all 2-H attacks. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 AA27882; Sat, 10 Jul 93 01:03:52 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA26322; Sat, 10 Jul 93 02:03:19 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Sat, 10 Jul 93 2:02:51 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Reply To OJ's Survey Date: Sat, 10 Jul 93 16:02:51 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <3F90550166E@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Wayne Shaw writes: > Second, I think the change in values has some problems. While it's > currently too easy to maim someone, the changed numbers make it basically > impossible to kill someone outright. I realize the Fourth edition is > trying to move away from the over-lethality of RQIII, but I find it Well the other way of decreasing lethality would be to increase HP. Using the same value for armour and weapons but making HP=(Siz+Con)*2/3 would probably have a similar effect to the proposed armour/weapon reductions, and would cause roughly the same level of re-writing in older supplements. It doesn't have the simplicity of the new rules in calculating weapon damage, but allows for a greater range of integers and dice for the armour and weapons: one problem with the new rules is that there aren't that many kinds of dice to choose from. Graeme  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA14891; Sat, 10 Jul 93 22:24:27 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA14237; Sat, 10 Jul 93 23:24:09 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Sat, 10 Jul 93 23:23:22 EDT From: curtiss@netcom.com (Curtis Shenton) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: MAGIC: the other self / proto-fetch Date: Sat, 10 Jul 93 20:24:26 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <40E5ECF5F73@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> > > Here's the first piece of the meta-magic system. It explains how the > current types of magic-worker use their Other Self to help their > magic. I think it could easily be reverse-engineered to find general > rules on how to initiate magic workers of new and/or unique paths. That's what I really like about the idea of a meta-magic system. Once done it will suggest many more varities of magic. > > THE OTHER SELF > > Every magical practioner has an other self which must be molded in a > particular way in order to use magic. The molding process is long and > arduous or extremely dangerous. > > The shaman forms his other self into a spiritual reflection of > himself, an imitation of his own personality and his perceived > identity in society. Once fully formed the shaman's other self is > called a fetch. This makes alot of sense. > > The sorceror forms his other self into a tool that helps power his > magic. Each sorcerous tradition perceives this tool in its own unique > way, as a void, a bonfire of magical energy, a magical well, a magical > whirlwind, a meteor made of moonrock, or one of many other ways. > Sorcerors call their other selves by various names, depending on the > school they follow. Most call it the heart, or the heart > of (e.g. bloodless heart, heart of stone, welling heart, heart > of darkness). Some call it the twin. Others call it battery, > doppelganger, pendant, genius, guardian angel, shadow, or the well of > magic. I'd suggest that only many rather than most call it a something heart. But that's a minor complaint. > > The divine magician forms his other self into a pseudo-god, an > imitation or reflection of the god he worships which can serve as a > container for divine magic. Once formed the divine magician's other > self is called a vessel. It is the vessel of the god, but because it > is at least partially the possession of the divine magician it is not > restricted by the Compromise unless the divine mage carries it into > the mythic realm, where it becomes affected. I'd suggest that the divine magician gives his other self to his god. Maybe it becomes part of the god and in the same way the other self gives magic energy to the other two traditions through some sort of magical link the divine magcian now has a link to their god. Or perhaps the god shapes the other self into a reflection of itself. I'd prefer to emphasise the god part of this, but that's just my view on divine magic. > > > 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 AA14706; Sat, 10 Jul 93 22:07:20 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA13990; Sat, 10 Jul 93 23:06:53 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Sat, 10 Jul 93 23:06:15 EDT From: "Loren J. Miller" To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: MAGIC: the other self / proto-fetch Date: 10 Jul 1993 23:08:50 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <40E15A66D92@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Here's the first piece of the meta-magic system. It explains how the current types of magic-worker use their Other Self to help their magic. I think it could easily be reverse-engineered to find general rules on how to initiate magic workers of new and/or unique paths. THE OTHER SELF Every magical practioner has an other self which must be molded in a particular way in order to use magic. The molding process is long and arduous or extremely dangerous. The shaman forms his other self into a spiritual reflection of himself, an imitation of his own personality and his perceived identity in society. Once fully formed the shaman's other self is called a fetch. The sorceror forms his other self into a tool that helps power his magic. Each sorcerous tradition perceives this tool in its own unique way, as a void, a bonfire of magical energy, a magical well, a magical whirlwind, a meteor made of moonrock, or one of many other ways. Sorcerors call their other selves by various names, depending on the school they follow. Most call it the heart, or the heart of (e.g. bloodless heart, heart of stone, welling heart, heart of darkness). Some call it the twin. Others call it battery, doppelganger, pendant, genius, guardian angel, shadow, or the well of magic. The divine magician forms his other self into a pseudo-god, an imitation or reflection of the god he worships which can serve as a container for divine magic. Once formed the divine magician's other self is called a vessel. It is the vessel of the god, but because it is at least partially the possession of the divine magician it is not restricted by the Compromise unless the divine mage carries it into the mythic realm, where it becomes affected. 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 AA05926; Sun, 11 Jul 93 13:09:14 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA26019; Sun, 11 Jul 93 14:02:22 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Sun, 11 Jul 93 14:01:44 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: MAGIC: the other self / proto-fetch Date: Sun, 11 Jul 93 14:02:29 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <41D02821DC4@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> This is similar to many of the ideas we use in our own campaign, but with some differences. We use the term 'heart' pretty much like it is used in C.J. Cherryh's Rusalka/Chernevog series, i.e. it is a part of yourself that you can put into something else (like a moonrock, etc.) rather than a "heart of moonrock". What you put it into has a back reaction on your own personality, and of course your personality and magic tradition affects what you might put it into. >genius, guardian angel, We use these terms for an other self that is kept in you. Genius is for philosophical types, guardian angel is for religious. >shadow For Arkat Kingtroll we literally use the shadow. It gets very black as the Power vested in it increases... >Once formed the divine magician's other >self is called a vessel. Have you seen the current Paul & Mike draft? It went to OJ a week or two ago, in it we use the term "Vessel". (Just warning you so that you don't think we are stealing your terms.) We use "Vessel" for sorcerors, though. This seems to us more appropriate than using it for divine magicians, I think they have more of a link, or river, than a vessel. > The divine magician forms his other self into a pseudo-god, an >The divine magician forms his other self into a pseudo-god, an In our model we instead say that the priestess actually gives part of herself up into her goddess, forming a greater whole. Think of a Venn diagram: __________________ / \ / \ / \ / DEITY \ | | | O - cult | SPIRIT / GOD PLANE | spirit | | | | /\ <--other self | | | | | ------------------------------------ |__| <-- priestess MUNDANE PLANE Actually there would be many Initiates, cult spirits, etc. Temples would also bridge the gap between the two planes. I will try to get more stuff out on this but I have been quite busy working on my thesis. It's nice to see the parallelism with Loren's thinking; the more people who independently agree with the basic picture, the better chance it has of being 'right'. More later, Paul - Paul  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA13376; Mon, 12 Jul 93 15:09:20 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA03243; Mon, 12 Jul 93 16:07:08 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 12 Jul 93 16:08:04 EDT From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: MAGIC: the other self / proto-fetch Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1993 09:49:18 MEZ Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <43717B55A3D@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Amazing how parallel ideas evolve. I was triggered by Paul's and Mike's PRESENCE idea as well and wrote an article for Free INT 5 (out now, plug plug) which held that concept, too. While I left out the sorcerer's other self, I compared the fetch with the POW the initiates sacrifice to their deities. Loren writes: > Here's the first piece of the meta-magic system. It explains how the > current types of magic-worker use their Other Self to help their > magic. I think it could easily be reverse-engineered to find general > rules on how to initiate magic workers of new and/or unique paths. I thnk at least quite a lot of us agree with this meta-rule approach explicitely or only implicitely. I don't think that we get one general rule for magic out of it, rather we get more. > THE OTHER SELF > Every magical practioner has an other self which must be molded in a > particular way in order to use magic. The molding process is long and > arduous or extremely dangerous. Ths actually gives a new definition for rune ranks: people who have developed their other self fully. > The shaman forms his other self into a spiritual reflection of > himself, an imitation of his own personality and his perceived > identity in society. Once fully formed the shaman's other self is > called a fetch. Once fully formed... what about intermediate states? > The sorceror forms his other self into a tool that helps power his > magic. Each sorcerous tradition perceives this tool in its own unique > way, as a void, a bonfire of magical energy, a magical well, a magical > whirlwind, a meteor made of moonrock, or one of many other ways. [ some names forit deleted ] When we write sorcerer, whom do we mean: the adept, the apprentice, or the student and higher ranks? > The divine magician forms his other self into a pseudo-god, an > imitation or reflection of the god he worships which can serve as a > container for divine magic. Once formed the divine magician's other > self is called a vessel. It is the vessel of the god, but because it > is at least partially the possession of the divine magician it is not > restricted by the Compromise unless the divine mage carries it into > the mythic realm, where it becomes affected. Paul writes: (>> is Loren) >>Once formed the divine magician's other >>self is called a vessel. > Have you seen the current Paul & Mike draft? It went to OJ a week or > two ago, in it we use the term "Vessel". (Just warning you so that you don't > think we are stealing your terms.) We use "Vessel" for sorcerors, though. > This seems to us more appropriate than using it for divine magicians, I think > they have more of a link, or river, than a vessel. I agree that initiates extend their self into the realm of their deity. The parts of their souls (POW) "sacrificed" to the deity are actually given to the deity for safekeeping and upholding the special link through which the divine magic is obtained (and DI is worked). (Note that I regard divine spells as paid for magic waiting to be released. See my rantings in the dailies.) I count even the POW sacrificed for divine magic as part of the divine magicians other self, at least partly. In exchange the initiates gain part of the divine spark necessary to work divine magic. (I feel that there is no one-use divine magic, only uses that cannot be regained in a lifetime or two. Dead places and hero-plane excepted.) >> The divine magician forms his other self into a pseudo-god, an > In our model we instead say that the priestess actually gives part of > herself up into her goddess, forming a greater whole. Think of a Venn > diagram: > __________________ > / \ > / \ > / \ > / DEITY \ > | | > | O - cult | SPIRIT / GOD PLANE > | spirit | > | | > | /\ <--other self | > | | | | > ------------------------------------ > |__| <-- priestess > MUNDANE PLANE > Actually there would be many Initiates, cult spirits, etc. Temples > would also bridge the gap between the two planes. One problem I see in this are initiates of multiple cults. Do these split their other selves? And how does associate divine magic fit into this scheme? What about mechanisms like Gift POW to ancestor spirits and the POW-link sorcerers' apprentices create to learn the greater secrets of maniplation? What about "multi-genre" magicians like cult-shamans, sorcerer-priests of stygian heresies? Can all these be pressed into a meta-rule? And... does the team of five have an insight into Greg Stafford's view of magic for Glorantha? All this meta-ruling works fine for worlds created by the GMs, and can also be fitted into existing worlds with less specificly stated views on magic, but RQ4 seems to be stuck with Glorantha for good or bad. But that oughtn't stop us from discussing... -- Joerg Baumgartner rq4@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA23112; Mon, 12 Jul 93 06:23:19 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA12463; Mon, 12 Jul 93 07:22:42 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 12 Jul 93 7:22:07 EDT From: pvanheus@cs.uct.ac.za (Peter van Heusden) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RQIV Survey (Damage) Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1993 13:22:26 +0200 (SAT) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <42E5A1B534C@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Late reply, but anyway: Part 1: the new damage tables: I like. There has been a need to slow down the limb shattering et al in RQ. Part 2: the new location tables: I am not so keen on this. I liked the touch of extra realism 2 tables supplied, and found them easy to use (since they were on a reference sheet, and character sheet). I feel no need for a new unified table. 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 AA10670; Mon, 12 Jul 93 14:10:33 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA00507; Mon, 12 Jul 93 15:08:06 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 12 Jul 93 15:09:21 EDT From: jjm@zycor.lgc.com (johnjmedway) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: DAMAGE SURVEY ( my two clacks ) Date: Mon, 12 Jul 93 14:07:43 CDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <4361BED39F1@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Since everyone else is doing it... >> Date: Thu, 1 Jul 93 22:45:11 CDT >> To: jovanovic@cuccfa.ccc.columbia.edu (oliver jovanovic) >> Subject: RQIV Survey (Damage) >> >> >> Feel free to simply reply: >> >> >> >> 1) Yes (or No) >> >> 2) No (or Yes) >> >> Was this intended as a hint? >> >> >> My votes (with accompanying disclaimers/backpedalling/alterations/etc.) >> >> >> 1) In your opinion, are the proposed changes to damage bonus, weapon damage >> >> and armor values worth making? >> >> NO >> >> >> >> 2) In your opinion, is the proposed change of using a single merged hit >> >> location table worth making? >> >> YES YES YES YES >> >> >> >> >> Now for the other stuff: >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> To give you some background, these changes were made in response to >> >> a number of comments on the RQIII damage system. The comments >> >> included complaints regarding the sudden jumps in the damage bonus >> >> table, and the odd mathematical progression of the current damage >> >> If the same damage modifier paradigm (pardon the grad-speak) is to be >> retained, I believe that this system is _acceptable_, though it is not >> _desirable_. I like the more variable damage of the die roll for damage >> modifier. >> >> I am more in favor of a revolutionary approach to damage modifiers here. >> Either: >> >> 1) Percentage Modifiers: (personal favorite) >> Basic die roll for each weapon, and the character has a % modifier >> to the total (preferably two, one for swing and one for thrust) >> This should not be very intrusive, and requires no other major >> changes. I've played with this in the past, and though it requires >> a bit of math, it works well and shouldn't put off too many. >> >> >> 2) Pendragon-esque: (I'm less fond of this one) >> Basic die roll for each weapon, and the character rolls a certain >> number of dice (or simply multiplies, if the handful of dice idea >> isn't appealing). Since this is normalized at 4, current HP and AP >> need to be scaled, each point of healing yields d6 points healed, >> etc. I haven't tested this, hence it wasn't in my previous post on >> the subject. These numbers _will_ need to be worked on. This is a >> _rough_ example. >> >> Rough Examples of each follow: ( Numbers _will_ have to be tweaked ) >> >> Gang-o-4 % Scheme Dice Scheme >> STR+SIZ System Swing Thrust Swing Thrust >> >> 01-05 -4 50 40 1 1/2 >> 06-10 -3 60 50 1 1 >> 11-25 -2 70 60 2 1 >> 16-20 -1 90 80 3 1 >> 21-25 0 100 90 3 2 >> 26-30 +1 110 100 4 3 >> 31-35 +2 120 110 4 4 >> 36-40 +3 130 120 5 4 >> 41-45 +4 140 130 5 5 >> 46-50 +5 160 140 6 5 >> 51-55 +6 180 150 7 6 >> 56-60 +7 200 160 8 7 >> >> The first scheme should be obvious enough. As I said, it can be put in place >> with few other changes. >> >> Here's an example of the second: >> >> Examplus with a broadsword (d8). STR + SIZ = 30, therefore, he rolls >> 4d8 when swinging, 3d8 when thrusting, and his healing 3 spell heals 3d6. >> His backup dagger is 4d4/3d4, etc. His cuirboilli cuirass is worth 12 pts. >> >> Monstrous, with a maul (d10). STR + SIZ = 44, therefore he rolls >> 5d10 for the maul. There's no thrusting equivalent. >> His disruption spell causes 4d4, and his plate armor is worth 24 pts. >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> A second set of comments came from a number of people that found >> >> keeping track of two hit location tables (Melee and Missile/Spell) >> >> an unnecessary complication. >> >> Yes! Further notes: I like the old tables in principle, but felt that the melee table was a 'limb-fest' as someone else recently termed it. The tables are too coarse ( using a d20 ) to make splitting the tables work in a clean realistic fashion. They're not good enough to be worth the fuss of two charts. Besides, anyone care to tell me, based on the RQ{1,2,3} Melee Hit location chart, why the area which was first armored in antiquity, and last shed of it's armor in modern times was the chest? >> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> MELEE WEAPONS >> >> >> >> Damage AP A% P% SR ENC STR DEX Cost Notes >> >> >> >> 1H Swinging >> >> >> >> Scimitar 2d4 8 10 10 2 1.5 7 9 60 >> >> >> >> 1H Thrusting >> >> >> >> Scimitar 2d3 8 10 10 2 1.5 5 9 60 >> >> >> This is going to be a mess. I have people who can't keep two hit location >> charts straight, and now we're going to give them 2 different damage dice >> for each weapon? Argh! >> >> I suggested, and still think that there should be a difference between swinging >> and thrusting damage, but this mechanism ain't it. >> >> >> >> 2H Thrusting >> >> >> >> Swordstick 1d8 8 5 15 1 2 7 13 75 >> >> Great Sword 1d10 9 5 5 1 3.5 11 13 250 >> >> Why no Bastard Sword? >> >> >> >> SHIELDS >> >> >> >> Damage AP A% P% SR ENC STR DEX Cost Notes >> >> >> >> Small 1d3 8 5 15 3 2 5 7 50 Assumes wood. >> >> Medium 1d4 10 5 20 3 4 7 7 75 Leather: -1 AP >> >> Large 1d6 12 5 25 3 6 9 7 100 and 1/2 cost >> >> Bronze: +1 AP >> >> and 2x cost >> >> There should also be modifiers to ENC and STR/DEX. >> >> >> >> Using a 1H weapon 2H adds 2 to effective STR. >> >> This is so trivial, as to be useless. Either make the gain reasonable (i.e. >> larger) or ignore it. >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> ARMOR >> >> >> >> Area Protected Type Material AP ENC Cost >> >> Trews should protect Abdomen as well. >> >> >> >> Abdomen Skirts Leather 1 .5 5 >> >> Heavy Leather 2 1 10 >> >> Cuirboilli should also be an option. >> >> >> >> Head Hood Leather 1 .5 4 >> >> ... >> >> Thankyou. >> >> Now to add the % modifiers to Move quietly and Spot Hidden, and we're there. >> >> >> >> Overlapping armor has little effect normally - if the lighter of the >> >> overlapping armors has at least 3 AP, add 1 AP to value of the heavier armor, >> >> but make sure to count the full ENC of the overlapping armor. Two pieces of >> >> Reasonable, and simple. I like it. >> >> >> I still feel that partial armor need to be addressed, but nobody else seemed >> to care when I posted my system to the playtest list last week. One further bit. Why package the armor changes, the damage changes and the damage bonus changes as one unit? You might have gotten finer stats on what portion of you package went down well, or poorly, if theey were individually voted. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 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 AA18406; Mon, 12 Jul 93 16:45:53 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA08405; Mon, 12 Jul 93 17:45:27 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 12 Jul 93 17:44:36 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: MAGIC: the other self / proto-fetch Date: Mon, 12 Jul 93 17:45:40 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <438BAE87377@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Despite my own use of the "other self" terminology and system for many years, I'm not sure it should be made universal. Loren writes: > Every magical practioner has an other self which must be molded in a ^^^^^ I disagree with the 'Every', and, I am told, Greg does also ( this is one of the few responses from the top provoked by the P & M system. ) From Earth sources, while the idea is very common, it is not completely universal. For Glorantha, I would say that it is more or less the default mode but that there are important exceptions, probably including: Standard Issue Mostali: These guys don't have an other self, instead sorcery is completely natural to them. They don't have to build up an otherworld self to do magic, they can just detach a bit of their 'regular' consciousness to run spells. I.e., their power acts like Vested power automatically. Brithini: They might not separate the other self, or if they do they might think that it is evil and separate it utterly. I don't know. God Forgot: Rather than having a unitary 'other self' I think that they enchant many little enchantments, each of which can support a specialized type of spell. I see them as sort of "Gadgeteers" rather than taking the holistic approach to magic used my most cultures. Maybe the sorcerors of Fonrit, as well. More examples could follow but I don't have time... >One problem I see in this are initiates of multiple cults. Do these >split their other selves? No, it's like a Venn diagram, there is some overlap. Initiates of associate deities may produce a triple-overlap area, initiates of non-associate dieties two areas of unconnected double overlap. Initiates of hostile cults have a really strangely shaped state function in spirit-space which describes them; it looks kind of like some of the gerrymandered voting districts which have been in the news (in the US) lately. I would use the meta-rule more as a guide to what might be possible rather than a rigid rule. I think that there are many variants possible, and that meta-rules should be able to account for variants. I myself liked the Second Self idea and we use it a lot in our campaigns but there may be room in Glorantha for approaches quite different from these. (Greg seems to think so as well, I hear). Well, I should send this because my machine is ill, may crash at any moment. More later Paul R.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA29205; Wed, 14 Jul 93 12:19:11 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA23445; Wed, 14 Jul 93 13:18:42 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 14 Jul 93 13:17:51 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Thoughts on Magic Date: Wed, 14 Jul 93 13:19:06 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <4644AF469FC@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Paul R. agrees with David Cake. The deity imprints a 'mold' on you which contains the pattern for the spell. In reusable magic the mold can be refilled; for non-reusable spells the mold is broken when the spell is cast. >Think of Divine magic as very minor HeroQuest >abilities, gained through rituals of re-eneactment of the deities powers and >deeds We've actually done a lot with this theme in our campaign. Trickster is a good example - our trickster shrines are connected with specific legends of Trickster, and the acolyte who wishes to gain one of his powers has to recreate his actions. Note that this is the `task' set by the keeper of the shrine. We also have used this for trolls, and for the more primitive cults. At the big temples the quests are so managed that you don't actually need to play through them to determine success, but it still can be fun and illuminating to go through a rote quest. Trickster Examples from our campaigns (An earlier version of these appeared on the Digest in Jan. 1991): A legend of Trickster {Note: In the campaign this was presented as a 'fairy tale' for children, hence the tone. The Orlanthi picked up the story from a serious legend of the autochthonous Hsunchen when they originally moved into the area, hence Trickster is an evil figure who is responsible for the trouble in the world today, but because this is an Orlanthi adaptation he is presented as doing this out of a twisted sense of humor rather than pure malice. The original Hsunchen story would have been much grimmer in tone and a serious warning against intertribal mating (i.e., different animal tribe), incest, and trusting strange guests too much.} Trickster visited this region in the Lesser Darkness. The people in the region were starving, and the Bear and Weasel clans had been forced to learn how to eat Elk and Rabbit. Bear was a great power and befriended Weasel, small but cunning and swift. When two of the Bear ancestors were to be married, they invited two Weasels to be married with them in a joint ceremony. Trickster, as a traveler happening by, was invited to the wedding party. He was thrown out for devouring the entire wedding feast [1], but not before he fooled the newlywed Weasels and Bears into sleeping with each other instead of their spouses. [2] First unions were always fruitful long ago, so both ladies caught. Following the misconception, the Wolverines were born. Mrs. Weasel bore first, a boy and a girl. It was a difficult labor and everyone commented on how big and strong the children were. Mr. Weasel was hard put to keep the family in food as the children had a liking for large helpings of everything. Mrs. Bear also had twins, one cub male and another female. The children grew apace and seemed healthy and strong. Mrs. Bear wondered why her children were so small, but at least their appetite seemed normal, if not a trifle too hearty. The four little ones loved to play, especially with each other. Eventually, as they grew up, it began to dawn on people that something strange had happened on the wedding night. The four children were neither Weasel nor Bear but something in between and more ferocious than either. Others taunted the children, calling them "weasel-bear" and other worse names. When this happened it was not hard for the parents to figure out what had gone wrong and who was responsible. Mr Bear was furious. He went into a berserk rage and went out to hunt down the Trickster. His first attempt failed, but eventually he heard from the reindeer fold that a traveler in motley had come through their territory, changing the pine leaves into sharp needles. Bear caught up to the culprit in the Elk forest. He trapped the japester and a mighty hug and began crushing him. Trickster felt his bones creaking and struggled to get away; Bear's grip was so powerful that he only succeeded in pulling himself out of his own skin. [3] Bear felt his grip suddenly go slack as the king of practical jokers tried to make good his escape. He threw the empty hide into a tree and took a swipe at the fleeing Trickster and caught one claw in his anus. Trickster kept running and his intestines spooled out behind him [4]; when he reached forty feet and was caught, bouncing like a paddleball on an stretchy wool string, Bear collapsed with laughter and decided not to continue tearing the joker apart. He tied the gutless Trickster to a pine tree with the innards, and left to go sleep in his den. Trickster eventually pulled himself free and put himself together. Now his trick with the needles was regretted, for he got some permanently under his skin, causing him to scratch and whine as he walked along. The needles itched powerfully [5], but scratching them only made them prick painfully under his skin. He was a pitiful sight with his stitched-together skin barely holding in his guts, but he made his way to the old Rabbit burrow where Mr. and Mrs. Weasel made their home. He explained to them what had happened and apologized for his childish trick. While the Weasels were also upset, they pitied him for the awful punishment Mr. Bear had dished out. They took him in until he was feeling a little better, and he offered to reward them with a solution for their troubles. You see, the Wolverines were growing up and could find no Weasels willing to mate with them, for some reason. Trickster suggested that if they married the Bear's children, everything would come out right in the end. The Weasel family would have married into the powerful Bear clan, and would boast descendants withthe strength of the Bears and the cunning of Weasels. Mr Weasel approved the plan and arranged the marriage. Trickster appeared in disguise and worked his magic again, but this time with more malice and a worse result. Each of the Wolverine males slept with his own sister instead of the promised wife. Trickster withdrew the glamour and left while they slept. The young couples were horrified when they awoke and found they had broken the greatest of taboos. Bear howled with anguish but had no choice but to pronounce exile on his own children and those of the Weasels. The four children wandered in exile for a time, but the smell of their sin attracted the attention of One who is better avoided. Wandering in the Great Darkness, the Wolverines fell prey to the armies of the Devil. He captured them and ripped forth the children of incest, marking them as his own creatures. Ever since then, Wolverines have been vicious loners, killing and destroying senselessly. 1. Swallow (as in GoG) Shrine: In back of the Ashford Ernalda temple Quest: Sacrifice for Swallow as a one - use spell. If you succeed it becomes reusable. Go to someone's celebration (preferably a wedding) and gobble up the entire feast. ----------- New Trickster spells 2. Mask This spell covers one being with an illusion of another. It works properly only to generate an illusion of a being that the caster is familiar with or has at least seen. Attempting to create a Mask from scratch generates a cartoon quality image, much like a carved mask. Each point of this spell acts as one point each of Illusory Sight, Sound, Smell, and Substance for this spell only. Shrine (cult secret) The shrine for this spell is at the site of the Weasel-Bear wedding, now in the catacomb of the main Orlanthi Temple site in Ashford. Officially, the Storm Voices know nothing of the shrine. Most of the initiates and acolytes of this shrine are children or teenagers of Ashford. Quest Outline: The acolyte may sacrifice for one use of the spell. If he succeeds in his 'quest', then the spell becomes reusable. Like Trickster in the story, the recipient must use the ability on someone in a way that leads to public embarassment and trouble. The recipient should be at some risk to himself as a result of the prank, like Trickster in the story. Ideally, this would be a wedding night screw-up or lead to incest like the incidents in the story, but because we are dealing with Trickster, he is more interested in the quality of the prank than its exact nature. The prank should cause someone to do something that he or she would normally never be caught doing. Example of a Quest: Tommy Trouble, age nine, is secretly a Trickster acolyte. He is a rebellious child of a respectable Malkioni family. {NOTE: Ashford is western Fronela and has an Orlanthi populace ruled by Hrestoli Malkioni nobles. Many of the craftsmen in town are also Malkioni.} Having spent a day in the shrine, Tommy is prepared to cast his one point of Mask. The Keeper gives him an easy Quest since he is just a kid. As his family leaves church services the next day, everyone is shocked to see Father Theophilus' head suddenly transform to that of a pig. Squealing and grunting, the transformed churchman asks Tommy to stay late before dispelling the illusion. --------------- In the Elk Forest is an obscure spot where three Trickster shrines lie close together. Remove Skin Used mostly for shock effect, but occasionally for escapes. The skin can be partially removed, but must be taken off fully before it is put back on. The three shrines have no special markers but can be found by dedicated would-be tricksters. Quest: The acolyte who wishes to gain this spell must allow himself to be flayed, either by a serious enemy or by the Keeper of the Shrine, if there is one in residence. If it is done by the Keeper of the Shrine he will reveal the 'trick' of putting the skin back on AFTER he has removed it from you, unless he thinks it would be particularly funny NOT to tell you. --------------- 4. Remove Intestines Use of this spell allows a Trickster to remove his own intestines. ( Note: A Rathor Initiate may sacrifice for this spell as a one-use spell at the appropriate shrine. He can use it to remove a Trickster's intestines if he rolls hit location 9 in a grapple or fist attack, or has an unresisting Trickster to do it to. This is generally fatal (unless the Trickster is himself possessed of the spell.) This spell is quite painful at first, but you get used to it. It can be done without cutting or removing the skin, but it's pretty disgusting. The small intestine can be used as a whip or noose with the appropriate skill. The Trickster who does this will tend to take "internal" damage however. Quest: You don't want all the details on this one. Ugh. ------------------- 5. Itch Gives an illusory sensation of pine needles under the skin. This creates a horrible itching which necessitates a Willpower roll to avoid scratching (abstracted as (INT+POW)*3 on d100; 96-00 fails in any case). Scratching causes one point of damage but relieves the itching for the next 1d3 rounds. This spell will not kill you;at 3 HP the victim will pass out rather than keep scratching. People in combat can ignore the itching but at a cumulative -10% per round skill penalty. Quest: The Trickster who wishes to acquire this spell must actually put pine needles under his skin (or have it done to him) at the shrine and suffer the full effect for a day. More later, Paul  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA20139; Fri, 16 Jul 93 11:55:33 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA17449; Fri, 16 Jul 93 12:54:45 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Fri, 16 Jul 93 12:54:07 EDT From: David Cheng To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: HERESY (?): Avoiding realism in RQ Rules Date: Fri, 16 Jul 93 12:53:35 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <493E54C591E@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> My inflammatory idea for the month of July: I was speaking to Oliver about the proposed weapon damage & strength bonus system: DC: "Why did the bastard sword go from d10 to d8?" OJ: "Because a couple of guys who know a lot about weapons made a strong case that the bastard sword really shouldn't do more than a good broadsword, given both are used one handed." This is fine and good by me, but isn't this taking reality too far? Personally, I don't really care that in reality, the broadsword and 1H bastard sword hit just as hard. Let's take away the historical names, and use generic terms: Small 1H Sword Average 1H Sword Big 1H Sword It makes a lot of sense to me, from a _game_ reality standpoint, that Small 1H Sword = d6 Average 1H Sword = d8 Big 1H Sword = d10 So, reapplying more flavorful terminology: Shortsword = d6 Broadsword = d8 1H Bastard Sword = d10 I would apply a parallel line of thought to: Small 1H Axe (Hatchet) / Average 1H Axe (Battle Axe) Small 2H Axe (Battleaxe) / Avg 2H Axe (Great Axe) / Big 2H Axe (Poleaxe) Crossbows, Bows (?) etc... Don't know about spears: Do they all hit the same, but with a difference in Strike Rank being thier differentiating factor? The determining factors about which a character uses would be: *1) Culture GM's must show discipline, and deny the whining of their minmaxing players. The GM must be willing to say: "I don't care that you have a 17 STR. You have spent your whole life in , and they just don't use Bastard Swords there." 2) Strength & Dexterity Big 2H Axe takes more STR to use than Small 2H Axe, etc. I would strongly favor readjusting the current cutoffs. 13 STR might be too low to use Bastard Sword 1H. Make it 15 perhaps. Whatever. Now, the cries will go up: "But wait, bigger STR will already give you a bigger damage bonus, so that's already factored in..." Yes, I acknowlege this, and I don't want to deal with it. Let us postpone that debate. If the next issue of RQ is perfect, this discussion group will be obsolete. We can't go having that, now can we... ;-) Comments and criticism warmly anticipated. -David Cheng  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA17051; Sun, 18 Jul 93 22:36:53 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA15742; Sun, 18 Jul 93 23:36:27 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Sun, 18 Jul 93 23:35:20 EDT From: rev. marc l. eyraud To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Rune Power Date: Fri, 16 Jul 93 16:46:57 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <4CE99E607FF@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> hello! if you could be sokind to send me the Rune Power write up, i would greatly appreciatei it!!! and whenever the pre-reg con book is available, i'd like that too! (boy, i'm greedy. i almost feel guilty) thanks ME  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA00148; Sun, 18 Jul 93 00:29:51 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA26723; Sun, 18 Jul 93 01:29:02 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Sun, 18 Jul 93 1:28:20 EDT From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Re: COMBAT: melee round proposal Date: Sat, 17 Jul 93 03:19:10 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <4B8790137EA@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) writes: > Just a short note of protest: > > I hate systems that proclaim static combat, i.e. combat where the > characters either move or act. With the strike rank system RQ had a > mechanic to cope with this problem, if not perfectly, so at least > sufficiently so. Unless I've totally misunderstood combat (and my players with me) you ALWAYS can move a bit in a round: you can combine a single move with any two melee actions, so you can single move and dodge, single move and parry, single move, parry and dodge...you can't use more than two actions for combat activity, so that third for movement is always possible. Now you can't TRIPLE move and do any of these, but somehow that doesn't seem a great flaw. The biggest flaw with the old strike rank system was that you had to pay attention to EVERYTHING, all the time. You couldn't skip any strike ranks because SOMEBODY was bound to be moving in them. Not to mention the crazymaking problems when you were handling a bunch of NPCs, some of whom had moved (and therefor delayed later strike ranks) some of who hadn't. At least the current system gets rid of most of that. > I think that a maneuver roll to determine advantages after movement and > combat is ok, but it should be related to the overall fighting skill, > not necessarily a separate skill. I can't agree. There are static fighters who are used basically waiting for the fight to come to them (most formation fighters) and there are those who are used to fluid fights. And the ability to control the motion of the fight is no more interrelated than is, say, your attack and your parry. ------------------------------ shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) or qed!shadow The QED BBS -- (310)420-9327  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA00160; Sun, 18 Jul 93 00:29:56 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA26730; Sun, 18 Jul 93 01:29:32 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Sun, 18 Jul 93 1:28:23 EDT From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Re: This Magic Business ... Date: Sat, 17 Jul 93 03:31:30 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <4B879C41A1B@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> curtiss@netcom.netcom.com (Curtis Shenton) writes: > I think if we were to do a magic expansion that explained a meta system > for coming up with new types of magic that would be very handy for non > Glorathan campaigns. Agreed. But you'll have to understand if every time an approach is shot at with "But it doesn't WORK that way on Glorantha" I twitch slightly. > > Um, which current version are you talking about? I agree that RQIII was > far to over powered. But I think any sort of system that allows for long > term enchantments without spending POW is going to lead to the problem > in Griffin island with Halcon somethingorother the sorceror from hell. I > like the Presence/Twin idea and how it makes the sorceror choose between > having spells already cast or being more versatile by not wrapping the > POW up in long term effects. > > I'm not sure I agree that non-POW expending long-term enchantments are automatically overpowered. The question is, how much time is being tied up compared to how much yield, and how much time does the sorcerer have to fool around with this all the time? A one per one time to duration seems ridiculous; nobody's going to bother with that. On the other hand the old system where the skill was all that limited duration was out of hand too. I just think there ought to be a useful middle case. I haven't looked over the Presence idea that much, so I can't comment on it; on the other hand, until the people actually producing RQIV put it out as a playtest draft, it's just blue skying, anyway. ------------------------------ shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) or qed!shadow The QED BBS -- (310)420-9327  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA00170; Sun, 18 Jul 93 00:30:02 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA26734; Sun, 18 Jul 93 01:29:36 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Sun, 18 Jul 93 1:28:27 EDT From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: COMMENTS Date: Sat, 17 Jul 93 03:40:16 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <4B879CC6348@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> burt@ptltd.com (Burton Choinski) writes: > I plan to use a +2 = 1d3 conversion. Thus, a creature with a +10 bonus > rolls 5d3. Easy to remember, and it keeps some randomeness. I also plan > to allow my players (YES! I convinced them to go this way! I can also > walk on water in my spare moments...:) to substitute 1d3 for any or all > +2 (or -2) values. So, one person might want to just use his pure +4, > while another might want 1d3+2, and another might want +2d3. Personally, I think I'd just go +1, +1D3, +1D6, +1D6+1, +1D6+1D3, +2D6 and so on, myself. > > Crit Slashed GS = max(2d6) +2d6 = 12+2d6, or about 19 hits...that will burn > just about anyone in my book. But the current rules don't agree with you. To kill an average human (SIZ 13, CON 11) under the current rules, requires at least 24 points of damage to do it outright no matter WHERE you do it. Note that taking double or event triple in the head or abdomen no longer has any immediate effect on your life (bleeding is another story, but at best that's not immediate and isn't even certain to happen). > > Not lazy, we just hated the "limb-fest" the melee table has. We just > use the missle table for both. . At least for swinging weapons, I never felt the idea that an awful lot of hits would go into the limbs was a flaw. > ------------------------------ shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) or qed!shadow The QED BBS -- (310)420-9327  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA00178; Sun, 18 Jul 93 00:30:07 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA26737; Sun, 18 Jul 93 01:29:39 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Sun, 18 Jul 93 1:28:31 EDT From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Re: Reply To OJ's Survey Date: Sat, 17 Jul 93 03:48:59 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <4B879D304FC@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) writes: > Well the other way of decreasing lethality would be to increase HP. > Using the same value for armour and weapons but making HP=(Siz+Con)*2/3 > would probably have a similar effect to the proposed armour/weapon > reductions, and would cause roughly the same level of re-writing in > older supplements. It doesn't have the simplicity of the new rules > in calculating weapon damage, but allows for a greater range of integers > and dice for the armour and weapons: one problem with the new rules is > that there aren't that many kinds of dice to choose from. > Doesn't do a thing about my primary objection, which is that it's already difficult to get any sort of instant kill, even with a crit. Currently, it's too easy to maim, hard as hell to kill; all the current proposals make it harder to maim and almost impossible to kill. Not a net gain from my perspective. ------------------------------ shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) or qed!shadow The QED BBS -- (310)420-9327  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA16339; Sun, 18 Jul 93 21:56:51 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA14749; Sun, 18 Jul 93 22:56:07 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Sun, 18 Jul 93 22:55:17 EDT From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: HERESY (?): Avoiding realism in RQ Rules Date: Sun, 18 Jul 93 02:26:53 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <4CDED9137BE@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> David Cheng writes: > This is fine and good by me, but isn't this taking reality too far? > Personally, I don't really care that in reality, the broadsword and 1H > bastard sword hit just as hard. Well, that's your choice, but my view on it is that outside of areas where the intervention of fantasy elements distorts the picture, I expect my game system to reality check reasonably, or I'll look for something else. Otherwise, trying to extrapolate past the spelled out issues of the game system becomes a constant chore as you have to either A: second guess how the designers would handle the problem, since the current cases have no reality comparison to extrapolate from, or B: Base it on reality and ignore the fact you're being inconsistent (or, I suppose, C: base it on what's game conveniant and grit your teeth). These do not seem a desireble set of options. > I would apply a parallel line of thought to: > > Small 1H Axe (Hatchet) / Average 1H Axe (Battle Axe) > > Small 2H Axe (Battleaxe) / Avg 2H Axe (Great Axe) / Big 2H Axe (Poleaxe) Again, your choice, but I don't see the benefits in paving over real world distinctions as justified by the conveniance. ------------------------------ shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) or qed!shadow The QED BBS -- (310)420-9327  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA02555; Sun, 18 Jul 93 04:38:25 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA29151; Sun, 18 Jul 93 05:37:56 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Sun, 18 Jul 93 5:36:48 EDT From: kokko@eemeli.enet.dec.com (The Stars Are Right) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: COMMENTS Date: Sun, 18 Jul 93 11:36:50 +0200 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <4BC9F9D682C@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> >But the current rules don't agree with you. To kill an average human >(SIZ 13, CON 11) under the current rules, requires at least 24 points of >damage to do it outright no matter WHERE you do it. Note that taking >double or event triple in the head or abdomen no longer has any immediate >effect on your life (bleeding is another story, but at best that's not >immediate and isn't even certain to happen). We have a house rule that says +6 hitpoints to the head or chest kills you outright (to have some kind of kill rate ,-)). Otherwise giants could almost never kill you and it is extremely difficult to kill anybody with one strike. -- hannu  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA02561; Sun, 18 Jul 93 04:39:22 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA29165; Sun, 18 Jul 93 05:39:01 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Sun, 18 Jul 93 5:37:52 EDT From: kokko@eemeli.enet.dec.com (The Stars Are Right) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: HERESY (?): Avoiding realism in RQ Rules Date: Sun, 18 Jul 93 11:37:43 +0200 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <4BCA4915DEF@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Tie me to the same stake as David and Greame. I'm in on this heresy. -- hannu  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA05146; Sun, 18 Jul 93 09:55:36 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA05817; Sun, 18 Jul 93 10:55:12 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Sun, 18 Jul 93 10:54:04 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: HERESY (?): Avoiding realism in RQ Rules Date: Sun, 18 Jul 93 10:53:34 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <4C1E9E91B6D@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Paul Reilly here. > are really strong people able to use huge weapons 1 handed? Yes, stronger people can (and probably should) use bigger weapons. There is a tradeoff between size of weapon and speed of blows, but the optimal size of weapon does increase with strength. >do fighters match their weapons to their size? Yes. In SCA combat I use a heavier sword than a person of ordinary strength or less usually does, but I don't use one as heavy as I can because I fear hurting people. My blows for a 1-hand weapon start to slow down at around a mass of 2 kilos (with a length of say one meter). At lighter weights than this I am moving my arm practically as fast as I can anyway. (I only use four pound swords for practice, hitting a pell rather than a human with them.) A sword that is too light can be tiring to use, because the power of the blow is not coming from the kinetic energy stored in the sword but from that in one's arm. Thus one must keep a killer grip on the sword to throw a decent blow, whereas with a sword that is 'right' for one's size, strength, and style one can throw good blows with a much more relaxed grip and wrist. These small muscles are likely to tire first and limit your fighting ability. On the whole I would go to the Pendragon system, with damage based on the person, fewer weapon categories, and the assumption that people use weapons 'tuned' to their Str, Siz, Dex, and style (with penalties for picking up an untuned weapon.) When I use a bastard sword I will do more damage with it than with a broadsword. Someone much weaker than myself might actually do more with the broadsword, because he couldn't get the bastard sword moving very fast and would deliver less energy on target than with the broadsword. Remember that when I use a light sword, I am limited by the rate at which I can drive the mass of my arm itself. Someone whose arms are less massive than mine is more limited by the mass of the light sword. More later, Paul  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA05284; Sun, 18 Jul 93 10:05:17 -0500 Return-Path: <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA05933; Sun, 18 Jul 93 11:04:56 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Sun, 18 Jul 93 11:03:47 EDT From: Nick Brooke <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: More Heresy Date: 18 Jul 93 11:02:44 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <4C2136D3290@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> I'm up there with David, Graeme, and Hannu. - Nick  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA07217; Sun, 18 Jul 93 12:48:07 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA07854; Sun, 18 Jul 93 13:47:40 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Sun, 18 Jul 93 13:46:35 EDT From: jjm@zycor.lgc.com (johnjmedway) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: HERESY(?): weapons and damage Date: Sun, 18 Jul 93 12:46:55 CDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <4C4C8C43A0B@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> >> From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) >> Subject: Re: HERESY (?): Avoiding realism in RQ Rules >> Date: Sun, 18 Jul 93 10:53:34 EDT >> >> > are really strong people able to use huge weapons 1 handed? >> >> Yes, stronger people can (and probably should) use bigger weapons. There >> is a tradeoff between size of weapon and speed of blows, but the optimal >> size of weapon does increase with strength. There should bee a limit on this, however. After a point there's a diminishing ( to the point of negative ) return. >> On the whole I would go to the Pendragon system, with damage based on the >> person, fewer weapon categories, and the assumption that people use weapons >> 'tuned' to their Str, Siz, Dex, and style (with penalties for picking up >> an untuned weapon.) I still don't like the flat add for weapon-type in Pendragon ( that seems as broken as the flat add STR bonus in RQ ), but otherwise agree. Most of the damage should come from the wielder, whether that's handled with % modifiers to damage or number of dice, or whatever. >> From: gal502@huxley.anu.edu.au (Graeme Lindsell) >> Subject: Re: HERESY (?): Avoiding realism in RQ Rules >> Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1993 17:50:53 -0600 >> >> Well, my cry is that bigger strength _sometimes_ gives you a bigger damage >> bonus (every 5 points of strength gives +1 damage currently). The ability >> of high strength characters to use bigger weapons was one of their >> advantages. >> >> Weapon Strength >> Small 1H Sword = d6 9 >> Average 1H Sword = d8 11 >> Big 1H Sword = d10 13 >> Really Big 1-H Sword = 2d6 15 >> Huge 1-H Sword = 2d8 19 >> Mondo 1-H Sword = 3d6 21 >> >> possible if we used average Str + Siz instead of Str? I've read that archers >> match their bows to their strength: do fighters match their weapons to their >> size? This is probably a more realistic approach to the whole thing ( funny how this thread started aiming away from realism ). Average of ( STR + SIZ ) would be better, or maybe the minimum of ( STR + SIZ ) is better. I just fear seeing a duck with a mondo strength spell trotting around with a 2d8 sword, otherwise. As for using a mismatched weapon, strong folks should still get _some_ additional damage, else you'll have trolls doing only 1d4 with a dagger. How about this: For each point below requirement: -10% damage For each point above requirement: +10% damage Then we would have something like this: Exemplus, with STR = 13 and SIZ = 13: Weapon Damage min/avg/max Small 1H Sword d6 + 40% 1/ 4/ 8 too light Average 1H Sword d8 + 20% 1/ 5/ 9 ok Big 1H Sword d10 1/ 5/ 10 optimal Really Big 1-H Sword 2d6 - 20% 1/ 5/ 9 ok Huge 1-H Sword 2d8 - 60% 0/ 3/ 6 way too heavy Mondo 1-H Sword 3d6 - 80% 0/ 2/ 3 stupid to try Now, if we say that using a weapon 2-handed adds 2pts of STR & 2 pts of SIZ... But is any of this right for thrusting weapons? >> From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) >> Subject: Re: COMMENTS >> Date: Sat, 17 Jul 93 03:40:16 PDT >> burt@ptltd.com (Burton Choinski) writes: >> >> . At least for swinging weapons, I never felt the idea that an >> awful lot of hits would go into the limbs was a flaw. Yes and no. It works for 1H swinging weapons, which tend to flail around a bit more, but not the mostly overhead/held-in-front weapons like greatswords. The leg hits were far too frequent. For thrusting weapons, it was totally absurd. Now if the 'Missile' chart was to be used for all 'thrusting weapons' that would be much more acceptable. (Please note: I said 'thrusting' as opposed to 'impaling' which also includes some _swinging_ weapons. ) >> From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) >> Subject: Re: Re: Reply To OJ's Survey >> Date: Sat, 17 Jul 93 03:48:59 PDT >> >> Doesn't do a thing about my primary objection, which is that it's already >> difficult to get any sort of instant kill, even with a crit. Currently, >> it's too easy to maim, hard as hell to kill; all the current proposals >> make it harder to maim and almost impossible to kill. Not a net gain >> from my perspective. I agree, it should be _easy_ to kill. That's the way sharp objects work! --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 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 AA07518; Sun, 18 Jul 93 13:09:00 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA08076; Sun, 18 Jul 93 14:08:34 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Sun, 18 Jul 93 14:07:26 EDT From: jjm@zycor.lgc.com (johnjmedway) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: While we're burning heretics... Date: Sun, 18 Jul 93 13:08:03 CDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <4C522CF5365@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> >> From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) >> Subject: Re: Re: COMBAT: melee round proposal >> Date: Sat, 17 Jul 93 03:19:10 PDT >> >> > I think that a maneuver roll to determine advantages after movement and >> > combat is ok, but it should be related to the overall fighting skill, >> > not necessarily a separate skill. >> >> I can't agree. There are static fighters who are used basically waiting >> for the fight to come to them (most formation fighters) and there are >> those who are used to fluid fights. And the ability to control the >> motion of the fight is no more interrelated than is, say, your attack and >> your parry. This point, however begs a question. How related should attack and parry be? The Pendragon system presents them as one, and I've been inclined similarly for years. Isn't there a pretty big diference in how you would fight and parry if your bastard sword and shield was changed to short spear and shield? Why should your shield skill stay the same? A few years back Rob Smith & I were working on a style-oriented combat system, ( intended to replace the RQ combat system ) where attack, parry, and gimmick effects were all rolled into one skill. Essentially the first digit of the roll would determine success or failure, and the second digit would determine the effect ( type of hit, type of damage dice, gimmick effect, etc.). Skill was broken down by attack/parry combo ( say Sword and Shield, Rapier and Main Gauche, 2H Spear, etc.). You did _not_ have separate skills for punch, kick, etc. 'Style' was one of: Duellist - Noble, reasonably fair-fighting, etc. Almost all 'hits' would be 'proper' weapon hits, in 'proper' locations. There would be open- ings for pushes and trips, where the character would have the option of taking or passing. Military - formal, though not stylish training in weapon and whatever keeps you alive, sloppier style, though probably more likely to get a 'hit' of some sort. Much more likely to kick, punch, spit, etc. ( thus averages slightly lower 'damage', but more likely to have some effect, rather than waiting for a 'proper' openeing ) Free-style - anything-goes, dirty fighting with a high % of its attacks as gimmick effects, kicks, bites, gouges, etc. How you fight when you know you're a member of the food chain. This way you there was a difference between a 'proper' nobleman/duellist, and the veteran soldier and a broo. Of course, each style would translate to a lower value if fighting in a different style, as would similar weapons translate. sample combat skills lists: Noble: rapier/main gauche 75% (duellist) sabre 50% (military) [ translates to 25% duellist-style if trying to fight cleanly, i.e. against instinct ] Soldier: spear and shield 75% ( military ) this is _trained_ skill sword and shield 50% ( military ) this is _trained_ skill sword 50% ( free-style ) this is _learned_ skill knife 40% ( free-style ) Broo: club 75% ( free-style ) ( 2ndary attack might be head-butt...) in-fighting 75% ( free-style ) ( and disgusting ) from dim memory: 2nd Digit Duellist Military Free-Style --------------------------------------------------------------- 1 prime wpn. prime wpn. prime wpn. 2 prime wpn. prime wpn. prime wpn. 3 prime wpn. prime wpn. 2ndary wpn. 4 prime wpn. 2ndary wpn. 2ndary wpn. 5 prime wpn. 2ndary wpn. push/shove 6 2ndary wpn. push/shove kick/trip 7 2ndary wpn. kick/trip punch/gouge 8 push/shove punch/gouge. favored gimmick 9 favored gimmick favored gimmick favored gimmick 0 choose choose choose 'prime wpn.' should be obvious '2ndary wpn.' is off-hand weapon, weapon pommel, shield bash, ... 'push/shove' is a knockdown/back attempt 'kick/trip' is likewise, but handled differently 'favored gimmick' is much like the advanced maneuvers in RQ4 'choose' means pick anything you like. A similar parry/dodge table could exist. So, if skill was 50, a roll of 35 was a success, but depending on style, was either a primary weapon hit, a secondary weapon hit, or push/shove/knockdown attempt. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 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 AA01787; Sun, 18 Jul 93 02:50:01 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA28244; Sun, 18 Jul 93 03:49:36 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Sun, 18 Jul 93 3:48:28 EDT From: gal502@huxley.anu.edu.au (Graeme Lindsell) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: HERESY (?): Avoiding realism in RQ Rules Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1993 17:50:53 -0600 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <4BAD0EC7FDF@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Graeme joining the heretics here: >-David Cheng writes: >My inflammatory idea for the month of July: >It makes a lot of sense to me, from a _game_ reality standpoint, that > >Small 1H Sword = d6 >Average 1H Sword = d8 >Big 1H Sword = d10 > Well if this is heresy then they can tie us both to the same stake before they light the fire: I think it's a fine idea. >Now, the cries will go up: >"But wait, bigger STR will already give you a bigger damage bonus, so > that's already factored in..." Well, my cry is that bigger strength _sometimes_ gives you a bigger damage bonus (every 5 points of strength gives +1 damage currently). The ability of high strength characters to use bigger weapons was one of their advantages. How about making Min Strength Needed = Max Damage + 3? Then we get: Weapon Strength Small 1H Sword = d6 9 Average 1H Sword = d8 11 Big 1H Sword = d10 13 Of course, this implies the continuation: Really Big 1-H Sword = 2d6 15 Huge 1-H Sword = 2d8 19 Mondo 1-H Sword = 3d6 21 which doesn't seem very real: are really strong people able to use huge weapons 1 handed? Are really big and strong people able to ie: would it be possible if we used average Str + Siz instead of Str? I've read that archers match their bows to their strength: do fighters match their weapons to their size? Any of those martial artists out there care to comment (or burst into laughter)? > >Yes, I acknowlege this, and I don't want to deal with it. Let us postpone >that debate. If the next issue of RQ is perfect, this discussion group >will be obsolete. We can't go having that, now can we... ;-) Why don't we just debate it right now? This group is hardly straining the net resources with its bandwidth at the moment. Don't worry about RQIV being perfect: none of the other omens of the end of the world have happened. :-) --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 AA17021; Sun, 18 Jul 93 22:35:02 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA15723; Sun, 18 Jul 93 23:34:36 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Sun, 18 Jul 93 23:33:28 EDT From: curtiss@netcom.com (Curtis Shenton) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: HERESY (?): Avoiding realism in RQ Rules Date: Sun, 18 Jul 93 20:34:56 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <4CE916E2AB3@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> > > David Cheng writes: > > > This is fine and good by me, but isn't this taking reality too far? > > Personally, I don't really care that in reality, the broadsword and 1H > > bastard sword hit just as hard. > > Well, that's your choice, but my view on it is that outside of areas > where the intervention of fantasy elements distorts the picture, I expect > my game system to reality check reasonably, or I'll look for something > else. Otherwise, trying to extrapolate past the spelled out issues of > the game system becomes a constant chore as you have to either A: second > guess how the designers would handle the problem, since the current cases > have no reality comparison to extrapolate from, or B: Base it on reality > and ignore the fact you're being inconsistent (or, I suppose, C: base it > on what's game conveniant and grit your teeth). These do not seem a > desireble set of options. I'll second this. I like realism in my games. It makes the fantasy elements seem so much more, well fantastic. I'm all for burning the heretics. :) > > ------------------------------ > shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) or qed!shadow > The QED BBS -- (310)420-9327 > -- 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 AA22708; Mon, 19 Jul 93 06:10:26 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA21076; Mon, 19 Jul 93 07:09:56 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 19 Jul 93 7:08:44 EDT From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: COMBAT: melee round proposal Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1993 10:28:10 MEZ Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <4D629034D62@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> In <4B8790137EA@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu>, you write: > rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) writes: >> I hate systems that proclaim static combat, i.e. combat where the >> characters either move or act. With the strike rank system RQ had a >> mechanic to cope with this problem, if not perfectly, so at least >> sufficiently so. > Unless I've totally misunderstood combat (and my players with me) you > ALWAYS can move a bit in a round: you can combine a single move with any > two melee actions, so you can single move and dodge, single move and > parry, Do you mean double move + dodge, or single move, attack + dodge? > single move, parry and dodge...you can't use more than two actions > for combat activity, so that third for movement is always possible. Now > you can't TRIPLE move and do any of these, but somehow that doesn't seem > a great flaw. When would this movement occur? > The biggest flaw with the old strike rank system was that you had to pay > attention to EVERYTHING, all the time. You couldn't skip any strike > ranks because SOMEBODY was bound to be moving in them. Oh, I could. I simply figured out when this person would arrive at the location aimed at and allow missile, magic or miscellaneous actions for the oponent in the meantime. Thus 12 meters of movement were 4 strike ranks to skip. several people moving towards each other could be resolved as easily. > Not to mention > the crazymaking problems when you were handling a bunch of NPCs, some of > whom had moved (and therefor delayed later strike ranks) some of who > hadn't. At least the current system gets rid of most of that. Well, I don't bother to calculate the very minutia if there isn't a very good reason for it, i.e. one character dodging a bunch of guards. (BTW a situation not covered by the rules, where one can dodge only once in a round.) >> I think that a maneuver roll to determine advantages after movement and >> combat is ok, but it should be related to the overall fighting skill, >> not necessarily a separate skill. > I can't agree. There are static fighters who are used basically waiting > for the fight to come to them (most formation fighters) and there are > those who are used to fluid fights. Have your player characters -ever- formed a shield wall? Or a wedge? Mine haven't, maybe their opponents, but not the PCs. You see, formation fights are taking the individuality out of combat, and the result could as well be determined with the battle skill, modified by attacking and parrying skill. What PCs like to do is jump around, hamstring opponents, gain favorable positions, etc. > And the ability to control the > motion of the fight is no more interrelated than is, say, your attack and > your parry. Good point there: From what little experience I had with stick fighting one evolves a skill of stick-handling, not of hitting or intercepting hits separately. Mind: I like the possibility for slightly differing values in attack and parry skills for melee weapons, but I find it hard to imagine a master gladius attacker (90%+) with a parry skill of 30%, even if he uses a hoplite shield all of the time. -- Joerg Baumgartner rq4@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA21772; Mon, 19 Jul 93 04:40:32 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA20001; Mon, 19 Jul 93 05:39:53 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 19 Jul 93 5:38:57 EDT From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Re: COMMENTS Date: Mon, 19 Jul 93 02:34:29 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <4D4A85D3419@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> kokko@eemeli.enet.dec.com (The Stars Are Right) writes: > > We have a house rule that says +6 hitpoints to the head or chest kills > you outright (to have some kind of kill rate ,-)). Otherwise giants could > almost never kill you and it is extremely difficult to kill anybody with > one strike. > This is what I'm talking about. If they are going to weaken weapons they REALLY need to adress this. Personally, my feeling is that if triple damage to a location is going to potentially sever it if it's a limb, it pretty much ought to be lethal if its a critical location. ------------------------------ shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) or qed!shadow The QED BBS -- (310)420-9327  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA23409; Mon, 19 Jul 93 07:06:46 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25282; Mon, 19 Jul 93 08:06:22 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 19 Jul 93 8:05:11 EDT From: mc@cp.dias.ie To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: COMBAT Attacks and Parries Date: Mon, 19 Jul 93 13:01:57 BST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <4D719863A64@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Joerg writes > Good point there: From what little experience I had with stick fighting one > evolves a skill of stick-handling, not of hitting or intercepting hits > separately. Mind: I like the possibility for slightly differing values in > attack and parry skills for melee weapons, but I find it hard to imagine a > master gladius attacker (90%+) with a parry skill of 30%, even if he uses a > hoplite shield all of the time. > > > -- > Joerg Baumgartner rq4@sartar.toppoint.de I must agree. It seems to me that all weapons use should be represented by a single skill, indicating the skill with both the attack and parry, perhaps with modifiers for ease of use in attack or defense. This, however, would cause compatibility problems with published material and most peoples' campaigns. Instead appropriate weapons could be described as being 2/3 parry mininmum or 1/2 parry minimum you could avoid those situations of the 90% attack and 30% parry. This notation could be included in the weapons tables For certain weapons like spears I would propose that the lower of the attack and parry skills be no less than 2/3 of the higher skill. This would represent the staff-like qualities of a spear and it's ease of use for both attack and parry. Similarly the greatsword, if it is like the german two-handed sword with a reasonable space on the hilt for separating the hands, could also be used with a staff-like parry. In contrast weapons like the flail should have a low or no minimum parry associated with their attack skill, as their use in attack is considerably different from any attempt to parry. Finally, it should be mentioned that the same concept applies to shields as well. Slamming the shield in the path of an incoming blow is pretty similar to slamming a shield into an opponent and therefore the attack and parry skills should bear some resemblance to one another. So assuming that you can't actually do away with parry skill altogether I think somethink like this should be included to do away with the discrepancy (to my mind) that occurs with weapon attack=90% and parry=30%. Cheers, Myles  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA10933; Mon, 19 Jul 93 14:26:53 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA14657; Mon, 19 Jul 93 15:26:23 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 19 Jul 93 15:25:09 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: HERESY (?): Avoiding realism in RQ Rules Date: Mon, 19 Jul 93 15:24:36 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <4DE6F287116@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> If you are going to make a table that gives variable damage for the weapon appropriate for a given size and strength, and another table that give damage bonus based on size and strength, why not just fold both tables into one and give damage based on the person a la PENDRAGON? (Or Gurps.) The weapon is basically a tool to store kinetic energy and apply it in a small area, but the energy is supplied in the first place by the wielder. The type of weapon would give a bonus or penalty to the base damage. (Remember that if stats are logarithmic, as I think they are, that an additive bonus is a multiplier.) ------------------ On another topic, what do people think of having Slashes do double damage AFTER subtracting for armor? This makes a sword or axe good at cutting members off an unarmored foe on specials, but bad at punching through armor. (Note that depending on design, an axe type weapon may shade into an impaling weapon like the war hammer and become good at punching through armor. I am assuming that one Slashes with a broad bladed axe.) - Paul R.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA11370; Mon, 19 Jul 93 14:37:44 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA15069; Mon, 19 Jul 93 15:37:19 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 19 Jul 93 15:36:05 EDT From: curtiss@netcom.com (Curtis Shenton) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: HERESY (?): Avoiding realism in RQ Rules Date: Mon, 19 Jul 93 12:37:39 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <4DE9D982910@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> > > > If you are going to make a table that gives variable damage for the > weapon appropriate for a given size and strength, and another table that > give damage bonus based on size and strength, why not just fold both > tables into one and give damage based on the person a la PENDRAGON? (Or > Gurps.) The weapon is basically a tool to store kinetic energy and apply > it in a small area, but the energy is supplied in the first place by the > wielder. The type of weapon would give a bonus or penalty to the base > damage. (Remember that if stats are logarithmic, as I think they are, that > an additive bonus is a multiplier.) I like this actually. > > ------------------ > > On another topic, what do people think of having Slashes do double > damage AFTER subtracting for armor? This makes a sword or axe good at > cutting members off an unarmored foe on specials, but bad at punching > through armor. (Note that depending on design, an axe type weapon may > shade into an impaling weapon like the war hammer and become good at punching > through armor. I am assuming that one Slashes with a broad bladed axe.) This would be great. But then again I'm a GURPS fan and GURPS has mechanics similar to this already. :) > > - Paul R. > -- Curtis Shenton curtiss@netcom.com internet & 4@3091 WWIVnet Currently writing a RPG supplement for WotC. If you are interested in Vernian/steampunk style technology and magic and want to playtest email me and I'll give you the info on joining the mailing list.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA10140; Mon, 19 Jul 93 14:11:27 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA13938; Mon, 19 Jul 93 15:10:52 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 19 Jul 93 15:09:47 EDT From: "Roderick Robertson, SC1-5, x52936" To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: HERESY (?): Avoiding realism in RQ Rules Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1993 11:46 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <4DE2D062B37@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Just adding another voice to the Heresy. I always wondered how come Giants could use a weapon made for a smaller person. Lets look at Mr. Full Growth Giant, standing 16M tall. Mr Average Human stands a bit less than 2M, about 1/8th the size of the Giant. 1/8 of my own less-than-2m height (6' for us 'Murcans) is 1/4M or ~9 inches - just a little larger than most "action figures" sold in stores based on Cartoon characters. I have several of these on my terminal, and their weapons ARE NOT USABLE AS WEAPONS. Sure, I can hold them between thumb and fore-finger, but I wouldn't call that a weapon, even if made of the finest steel going. David's (?) idea of damage based on strength makes sense, especially if there is a SIZ component to the weapon stats, both max and min. So a Dagger has, say, a Min siz of 6 and a max of 30. (numbers off the top of my head). Below 6 it is a shortsword, above 30 it's useless. Another way to do this is state that the weapons table describes weapons for normal Humans (Siz 8-18). Below Siz 8, the character uses the same Physical weapon as the next "higher" type, so: Dagger->Shortsword; SS->Broadsword; BrS->Bastard Sword; BdS->2H Sword; 2HS->unusable. The other weapon families would follow similiar lines, with weapons which are 1 or 2 handed becoming 2H only. (Bastard Sword, Heavy Mace, Battle Axe, Short Spear). The top end weapons fall off the scale (2H Sword, Mauls, Pole Axes, Pikes). Between 18 and (?)36, the scale runs: 2H Sword->Bastard Sword (1H or 2H); BdS->Broad Sword; BrS->Short Sword; SS->Dagger; Dagger->Unusable. Weapons above the top end are unusable by normal humans, but a formula could exist to make them. I'd like to see Ducks carrying 2H swords go the way of the Dodo and Carrier pigeon. They could get away with a Bastard Sword used *Exclusively* in 2h mode. Remember, especially with swung weapons, leverage has it's part to play. Just to start a different Heresy: I was thumbing through the new Elric! yesterday, and had an Idea. Instead of Critical attacks causing extra damage/ignoring Armor, how about a Crit "Forces" a fumble on the opponent? Some of the Fumbles in the chart look like they were caused by your opponent (weapon knocked away), and the others can easily be extrapolated. Hit Self and Hit Friend become extra damage. Parry Criticals can also use the chart, though some of the result would have to be modified. Some results make sense (Weapon knocked away, fall down), others don't (64-72). Another different way to do it: A Special forces a Fumble, a Critical adds damage in addition to the forced Fumble (which means that Critical 98 (do max rolled damage and ignore armor) would take down quite a lot of opponents... Roderick 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 AA18486; Mon, 19 Jul 93 00:06:21 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA16870; Mon, 19 Jul 93 01:05:50 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 19 Jul 93 1:04:46 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: HERESY (?): Avoiding realism in RQ Rules Date: Mon, 19 Jul 93 15:05:20 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <4D017082D4B@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> > > > > > David Cheng writes: > > > > > This is fine and good by me, but isn't this taking reality too far? > > > Personally, I don't really care that in reality, the broadsword and 1H > > > bastard sword hit just as hard. > > I'll second this. I like realism in my games. It makes the fantasy > elements seem so much more, well fantastic. I'm all for burning the > heretics. :) > 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 > Careful now: three people agree with him. Remember One's an Unbeliever Two are Schismatics Three are Heretics Four makes a New Religion So this is now the One True Faith, and David's the Prophet. Burning us will only enrage the Armies of the Faithful! My reason for supporting the heresy are twofold: 1) It changes the concept of weapon damage. Up to now, once you had the right strength to use a weapon, it would do damage x. Using it 2-handed just gave you more strength towards getting x, it didn't change the base damage of the weapon, which is based on weapon size. Now how the weapon is handled determines weapon damage, but only in a few limited cases. 2) I didn't think they were being realistic, and Paul (who certainly seems to have experience in the field) agrees: the heavier weapons can be used 1 handed to full effect by people who are strong enough and big enough to do so. Taken to the extreme, the 1d8/1d10 system says that a Siz 40 giant needs to use the bastard sword 2 handed to get 1d10 damage, even though the sword has the same relative size to him as a dagger has to the average human. The 1d8/1d10 system is probably accurate for average size/strength people, but if we are going to do this, I think a more comprehensive system should be built, ie like the Pendragon system, rather than a system that is almost always weapon damage is proportional to weapon size except for one limited case. I might propose something in a day or so. Graeme 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 AA14514; Mon, 19 Jul 93 15:52:40 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA18184; Mon, 19 Jul 93 16:52:12 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 19 Jul 93 16:52:16 EDT From: burt@ptltd.com (Burton Choinski) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: COMMENTS, DAMAGE Date: Mon, 19 Jul 93 16:47:55 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <4DFDD6B1DB1@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Lots of stuff to reply to... =============================================================================== Wayne Shaw notes... %% curtiss@netcom.netcom.com (Curtis Shenton) writes: %% > Um, which current version are you talking about? I agree that RQIII was %% > far to over powered. But I think any sort of system that allows for long %% > term enchantments without spending POW is going to lead to the problem %% I'm not sure I agree that non-POW expending long-term enchantments are %% automatically overpowered. The question is, how much time is being tied %% up compared to how much yield, and how much time does the sorcerer have %% to fool around with this all the time? A one per one time to duration %% seems ridiculous; nobody's going to bother with that. On the other hand %% the old system where the skill was all that limited duration was out of %% hand too. The way we have done duration and range is using a squared table rather than a doubling one. The break point for this is about Range 4 or Duration 4. In the doubling table, a duration 10 lasts for 10x(2^10) or ~10,000 minutes. In a squared one it lasts for 10x(10^2) or ~1,000 minutes. I have been mulling over how a ritual would affect this. The way I see it, the dice you roll for the Ceremony add to the duration or range value before calculation. As an example, Joe mage decides to put a curse on some merchant who gyped him. He managed to get a snatch of hair of the little weasel, so he does not have to have LOS. He spends 89 rounds checking, doublechecking, consulting books, triple checking, etc (whatever a Socerer does for a Ceremony :) for each of range and duration, and adds 9 points of duration, 0 points of range (but the range skill is still needed since he wishes to improve it) and enough power in his "Drain APP" spell to chop the turkey down about 4 points. His Duration roll of 10d6 is 30, his range roll is 24. The range base is 1 (the basic range) plus the 24 he rolled. So the actual range is 25^2 (625) x10m, or 6.25km. Hopefully this is enough range to tag the bugger. The base duration of this spell is 30+10 (40), which translates to 1600 x10 minutes, or 16,000 minutes. This is just a tad over 11 days. He needed to spend 89+89+2 melee rounds (180) @10 secs (total 1800 seconds) to prep and cast this sucker, about half an hour's work. In any case, success or failure, I would deem the targeting material to be spent and useless. I would also deem the points actually invested in the spell are tied up, for simple play-balace. This use of ceremony seems to work okay...I have not tried to use it in play yet. Granted, the square table means no decade long curses (you want somthing that long, use Enchant with POW :), but if you can substitute time for capability, that means that Sorcerers won't have to bleed off so much magic to do everything and end up being ghost-bait or something. If a sorcerer is willing to spend an extra 2 melee rounds in addition to the casting time, he could concieveably get up to 6 "free" range or duration if he makes both ceremony rolls (basically, each round of his is a ceremony roll, the last round the roll to cast). Comments on this? %% > I plan to use a +2 = 1d3 conversion. Thus, a creature with a +10 bonus %% > rolls 5d3. Easy to remember, and it keeps some randomeness. %% %% Personally, I think I'd just go +1, +1D3, +1D6, +1D6+1, +1D6+1D3, +2D6 %% and so on, myself. Whatever is simpler for the group I guess. Might be moot if damage changes (later on). %% > Crit Slashed GS = max(2d6) +2d6 = 12+2d6, or about 19 hits... %% %% But the current rules don't agree with you. To kill an average human %% (SIZ 13, CON 11) under the current rules, requires at least 24 points of %% damage to do it outright no matter WHERE you do it. I think it is a logical extension to the maim/sever rules that triple damage to the head is fatal, if said amount of damage lops a limb ("heads and shoulders, over the boulders" :). A pick in the brain (impale) or crushed skull (blunt weapons) is just as bad. %% > Not lazy, we just hated the "limb-fest" the melee table has. We just %% > use the missle table for both. %% %% . At least for swinging weapons, I never felt the idea that an %% awful lot of hits would go into the limbs was a flaw. There were just too many leg hits, and to little chest exposed. In just about every hack 'n slash film I saw, the victims go down with wounds to the chest/abdomen more often then we see limbs cleaved. Personal Preferance I guess. =============================================================================== Graeme A Lindsell: %% > I'll second this. I like realism in my games. It makes the fantasy %% > elements seem so much more, well fantastic. I'm all for burning the %% > heretics. :) %% %% Careful now: three people agree with him. Remember %% %% One's an Unbeliever %% Two are Schismatics %% Three are Heretics %% Four makes a New Religion Looks like we got a new Spirit Cult. Here's my 1 POW. :) =============================================================================== Joerg Baumgartner: %% > And the ability to control the %% > motion of the fight is no more interrelated than is, say, your attack and %% > your parry. %% %% Good point there: From what little experience I had with stick fighting one %% evolves a skill of stick-handling, not of hitting or intercepting hits %% separately. Mind: I like the possibility for slightly differing values in %% attack and parry skills for melee weapons, but I find it hard to imagine a %% master gladius attacker (90%+) with a parry skill of 30%, even if he uses a %% hoplite shield all of the time. The same reason I have rolled punch, kick and headbutt into "Brawling" (including fist parry). It made little sense to have it seperate. =============================================================================== Paul R. %% If you are going to make a table that gives variable damage for the %% weapon appropriate for a given size and strength, and another table that %% give damage bonus based on size and strength, why not just fold both %% tables into one and give damage based on the person a la PENDRAGON? (Or %% Gurps.) The weapon is basically a tool to store kinetic energy and apply %% it in a small area, but the energy is supplied in the first place by the %% wielder. Sounds reasonable to me. It's gonna be hell updating all the past products to get stuff in line, but I like that way better anyways. Hey Oliver, about how much chance does this concept have of replacing the current way? Slim? None? Some? -- Burton P.S. Any update on when the Sorcery Draft or 3.0 draft will be out?  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA15182; Mon, 19 Jul 93 16:04:06 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA18614; Mon, 19 Jul 93 17:03:26 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 19 Jul 93 17:03:31 EDT From: "Loren J. Miller" To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: HERESY (?): Avoiding realism in RQ Rules Date: 19 Jul 1993 17:05:17 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <4E00DFB3FBA@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> I don't see a big difference in the way the rules work between: 1. basing damage on the person and letting weapons modify it. and 2. giving simple damage scores for weapons and modifiers for the persons who use them. In one the person determines the "primary" damage and in the other the weapon determines the "primary" damage; but the "primary vs secondary" thing is the only difference, and it's only semantic. Personally I'd like to see a system that went something like: hand-sized blade 1d4 fore-arm sized 1d6 arm sized 1d8 blade as tall as you 1d10 And used damage bonuses to differentiate between the damage that a sword swung by a giant and one swung by a duck would do. This would tie weapon descriptions and damage directly to SIZE, which I think is more important than STRENGTH for all the important leverage questions, wouldn't add any complexity to the game, and would add flexibility for those who don't like being tied down to weapon names that are inappropriate for their campaign (kukri, katana, sarissa, or naginata anybody?) 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 AA23489; Mon, 19 Jul 93 19:28:34 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA23955; Mon, 19 Jul 93 20:28:10 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 19 Jul 93 20:28:11 EDT From: jjm@zycor.lgc.com (johnjmedway) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: HERESY? (Which) Reality? Date: Mon, 19 Jul 93 19:28:03 CDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <4E377891392@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) >> Subject: Re: HERESY (?): Avoiding realism in RQ Rules >> Date: Sun, 18 Jul 93 02:26:53 PDT >> >> Well, that's your choice, but my view on it is that outside of areas >> where the intervention of fantasy elements distorts the picture, I expect >> my game system to reality check reasonably, or I'll look for something >> else. Otherwise, trying to extrapolate past the spelled out issues of I agree with this completely. >> David Cheng writes: >> > I would apply a parallel line of thought to: >> > >> > Small 1H Axe (Hatchet) / Average 1H Axe (Battle Axe) >> >> > Small 2H Axe (Battleaxe) / Avg 2H Axe (Great Axe) / Big 2H Axe (Poleaxe) I think David is making a mistake in lumping different _styles_ of weapons into the same continuum. A Poleaxe is not used in the same fashion as other 2H Axes. It should be in it's own category. We need to differentiate _style_ of use, from weapon. Classes should be defined by how the weapon is used ( not too far off from how it is now ). The weapons would vary by size within a class, and from there the damage rating. I don't think that there is anything unrealistic in this. The categories we currently have are very coarse amalgams of existing earth weapons, and probably could be further refined, without great complication. Classes of Weapon, by style of use: 1H Knife, 1H ShortSword, 1H Sword, 2H Sword, 1H Spear, 2H Spear, 1H Club/Mace, 2H Club/Mace, 1H Axe, 2H Axe, Halberd, PoleAxe, ... Within each of these categories, we rate from tiny to whopping big. Keep in mind, that the term 'Two-handed Sword' which we sometimes bandy about like an absolute, is applicable to the (relatively) puny and short Scottish 'claymore', and also to the german-style zweihander, which was a good deal longer, and a bit heavier. There's no reason that a duck couldn't fight with a (small) 2H Sword, unless their arms and shoulders are built sufficiently differently, but that's another argument. There is a problem with a duck waddling up and using a normal human broadsword 2-handed, though, just as a human using a duck 2H sword as a broad sword. They are built and balanced for how they will be used. Grips would be wrong, counter- weight wrong, etc. shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) >> Again, your choice, but I don't see the benefits in paving over real >> world distinctions as justified by the conveniance. Be careful what you are referring to as 'real world'. Are you referring to earth or glorantha? There's nothing to say that there is a weapon _called_ a bastard sword in glorantha. That was a european name for a mixed-use sword. It's like bezainted armor. The _name_ originated with a culture, and really has no meaning outside of that culture. ( Like Nick's argument v. the Naginata ). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 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 AA22930; Mon, 19 Jul 93 19:10:54 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA23573; Mon, 19 Jul 93 20:10:13 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 19 Jul 93 20:10:21 EDT From: "Roderick Robertson, SC1-5, x52936" To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: HERESY (?): Avoiding realism in RQ Rules Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1993 16:44 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <4E32A262908@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Loren Miller writes: >Personally I'd like to see a system that went something like: >hand-sized blade 1d4 >fore-arm sized 1d6 >arm sized 1d8 >blade as tall as you 1d10 Whose hand/fore-arm/etc are we talking about here? If a six-meter giant uses a "Fore-arm sized" sword (~1.5 meters long), it still only does 1D6 damage? Even though its the size of a Bastard Sword to Joe Average? (Between Arm and Body length). Likewise, if a 1.5 meter Duck uses a "Blade as tall as you" it does 1D10 damage? Even though its the same size as above? I think because of these questions, the physical Characteristics of the weapon should be detailed, then applied to size to see how the weapon is *handled* (see my previous post). So a Bastard Sword to a human is a 2 Hander to a duck, and a Shortsword to a Giant. The Base Damage does not change (1D10/1D8/whatever it is right now), but the Duck *must* use two hands, the Human *may* use one or two, and the giant *must* use one hand. >And used damage bonuses to differentiate between the damage that a >sword swung by a giant and one swung by a duck would do. This would >tie weapon descriptions and damage directly to SIZE, which I think is >more important than STRENGTH for all the important leverage questions, >wouldn't add any complexity to the game, and would add flexibility for >those who don't like being tied down to weapon names that are >inappropriate for their campaign (kukri, katana, sarissa, or naginata >anybody?) Roderick 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 AA07758; Tue, 20 Jul 93 07:07:44 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA06699; Tue, 20 Jul 93 08:06:51 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 20 Jul 93 8:07:04 EDT From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Re: COMBAT: melee round proposal Date: Tue, 20 Jul 93 02:51:53 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <4EF1C5944DE@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) writes: > > Unless I've totally misunderstood combat (and my players with me) you > > ALWAYS can move a bit in a round: you can combine a single move with any > > two melee actions, so you can single move and dodge, single move and > > parry, > > Do you mean double move + dodge, or single move, attack + dodge? Sorry. Actually, both are true. > > single move, parry and dodge...you can't use more than two actions > > for combat activity, so that third for movement is always possible. Now > > you can't TRIPLE move and do any of these, but somehow that doesn't seem > > a great flaw. > > When would this movement occur? Before and after the rest of the round. If you're complaining that you interweve movement with your attack, that's strictly correct, but on using the new system, I haven't seen a case where anyone wants to. > > Oh, I could. I simply figured out when this person would arrive at the > location aimed at and allow missile, magic or miscellaneous actions for > the oponent in the meantime. Thus 12 meters of movement were 4 strike > ranks to skip. several people moving towards each other could be resolved > as easily. Nice in theory, but I always ended up someone finishing an overlapping spell, or firing off a missile during that period, so I'd have to interrupt anyway. > > Well, I don't bother to calculate the very minutia if there isn't a very > good reason for it, i.e. one character dodging a bunch of guards. (BTW a > situation not covered by the rules, where one can dodge only once in a > round.) Except that my players almost always insisted on it, since it was possible them to preempt an attack by hitting the guard with a spell or missile before his attack eventuated. It was just generally a pian. Also, doesn't taking a double dodge option let you dodge every incoming attack in the round (albiet at a progressively worse chance)? > > Have your player characters -ever- formed a shield wall? Or a wedge? Mine > haven't, maybe their opponents, but not the PCs. You see, formation fights > are taking the individuality out of combat, and the result could as well > be determined with the battle skill, modified by attacking and parrying > skill. What PCs like to do is jump around, hamstring opponents, gain > favorable positions, etc. > Mine do it all the time, particularly what we've always refered to as "battle triangles", the trick of three fighters setting back to back so they have no possibility of someone getting behind them. I've also seen circles and pincers several times. Doesn't always happen, but my players never seemed to consider avoiding letting someone get at their back interfering with their individuality...they consider it survival. > Good point there: From what little experience I had with stick fighting one > evolves a skill of stick-handling, not of hitting or intercepting hits > separately. Mind: I like the possibility for slightly differing values in > attack and parry skills for melee weapons, but I find it hard to imagine a > master gladius attacker (90%+) with a parry skill of 30%, even if he uses a > hoplite shield all of the time. Well, I can certainly see an argument for more interrelation than there is, but the only real reason a sword and shielf man should know much of parrying with the sword (from what my SCA friends tell me) is that he loses use of the shielf once in a while, or gets swung at from a bad angle to parry with it. At least the experience improvement factors that in: if you end up using it to parry, you improve in it after all. > > > -- > Joerg Baumgartner rq4@sartar.toppoint.de ------------------------------ shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) or qed!shadow The QED BBS -- (310)420-9327  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA09833; Tue, 20 Jul 93 08:36:52 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA09645; Tue, 20 Jul 93 09:36:24 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 20 Jul 93 9:36:32 EDT From: "Loren J. Miller" To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: HERESY (?): Avoiding realism in RQ Rules Date: 20 Jul 1993 09:37:55 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <4F09AE801FB@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> "Roderick Robertson" wrote: > Loren Miller writes: > >Personally I'd like to see a system that went something like: > > >hand-sized blade 1d4 > >fore-arm sized 1d6 > >arm sized 1d8 > >blade as tall as you 1d10 > > Whose hand/fore-arm/etc are we talking about here? > > If a six-meter giant uses a "Fore-arm sized" sword (~1.5 meters long), > it still only does 1D6 damage? Even though its the size of a > Bastard Sword to Joe Average? (Between Arm and Body length). Likewise, > if a 1.5 meter Duck uses a "Blade as tall as you" it does 1D10 damage? > Even though its the same size as above? I hate it when people interrupt. It *really* steams me. Roderick, read the rest of my message to see my answer to your predictable objection. I include it below so that you don't ignore it *twice*. > >And used damage bonuses to differentiate between the damage that a ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >sword swung by a giant and one swung by a duck would do. This would ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >tie weapon descriptions and damage directly to SIZE, which I think is > >more important than STRENGTH for all the important leverage questions, > >wouldn't add any complexity to the game, and would add flexibility for > >those who don't like being tied down to weapon names that are > >inappropriate for their campaign (kukri, katana, sarissa, or naginata > >anybody?) 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 AA23677; Tue, 20 Jul 93 12:53:52 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA21268; Tue, 20 Jul 93 13:53:21 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 20 Jul 93 13:53:28 EDT From: jjm@zycor.lgc.com (johnjmedway) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: HERESY Date: Tue, 20 Jul 93 12:53:07 CDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <4F4E336302C@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> >> > Loren Miller wrote: >> > >Personally I'd like to see a system that went something like: >> > >> > >hand-sized blade 1d4 >> > >fore-arm sized 1d6 "Roderick Robertson" wrote: >> > Whose hand/fore-arm/etc are we talking about here? >> Loren Miller wrote: >> I hate it when people interrupt. It *really* steams me. Roderick, read >> the rest of my message to see my answer to your predictable objection. >> I include it below so that you don't ignore it *twice*. Tweeeet! Unnecessary Roughness, 10 yard penalty. I didn't understand it until rereading it here. I though you were arguing the same point as my previous suggestions ( see my remailed response to OJ's Survey, from last week and a posting from yesterday ), but what you are suggesting is similar, though not identical. Yours: Damage Die/Dice for weapon based on weapon _relative_to_user_, and damage modifier ( multiplier? ) based on SIZ. Mine: Damage Die/Dice for weapon based on _absolute_ size of weapon, and damage modifier ( multiplier ) based on SIZ & STR. ( I'm assuming David Cheng's genericised size/damage system for the weapons ). In principle I'm amenable to either, we just need to decide which is easier to implement, and what the damage modifier/multiplier would look like. What do we gain, or lose from either system? ( in terms of realism, paperwork, charts,... ) >> > >those who don't like being tied down to weapon names that are >> > >inappropriate for their campaign (kukri, katana, sarissa, or naginata >> > >anybody?) See my post from yesterday for a seconding vote on this point. BTW: >> > If a six-meter giant uses a "Fore-arm sized" sword (~1.5 meters long), >> > it still only does 1D6 damage? Even though its the size of a No, I'd say about 7 of them. >> > Bastard Sword to Joe Average? (Between Arm and Body length). Likewise, >> > if a 1.5 meter Duck uses a "Blade as tall as you" it does 1D10 damage? and he probably uses only a single die, or _maybe_ 2. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 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 AA28776; Wed, 21 Jul 93 05:09:45 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA13188; Wed, 21 Jul 93 06:08:52 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 21 Jul 93 6:09:22 EDT From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: MAGIC: the other self / proto-fetch Date: Tue, 20 Jul 93 19:36:03 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <50525D11693@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> "Loren J. Miller" writes: > Here's the first piece of the meta-magic system. It explains how the > current types of magic-worker use their Other Self to help their > magic. I think it could easily be reverse-engineered to find general > rules on how to initiate magic workers of new and/or unique paths. > > THE OTHER SELF > > Every magical practioner has an other self which must be molded in a > particular way in order to use magic. The molding process is long and > arduous or extremely dangerous. An interesting approach, but I'm not sure enough in keeping with common tradition to be rational in general purpose usage, nor quite enough in sync with the Gloranthan world view to be useable there. ------------------------------ shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) or qed!shadow The QED BBS -- (310)420-9327  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA28782; Wed, 21 Jul 93 05:09:52 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA13191; Wed, 21 Jul 93 06:09:24 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 21 Jul 93 6:09:29 EDT From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: DAMAGE SURVEY ( my two clacks ) Date: Tue, 20 Jul 93 19:43:59 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <50525D804FB@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> jjm@zycor.lgc.com (johnjmedway) writes: > Besides, anyone care to tell me, based on the RQ{1,2,3} Melee Hit location > chart, why the area which was first armored in antiquity, and last shed of > it's armor in modern times was the chest? > Well, over and above how often it gets hit (which is still pretty often if you factor missile weaponry in) the chest contains some of the best items for instant death in the body. A thrust through the arm probably won't kill you; through the abdomen, at least not instantly (and if you avoid the intestines, not at all). The chest, on the other hand is pretty much filled with the lungs and heart, which tend to put you out for good. I'd say the idea that chest and head protection are a priority make sense over and above how frequently they are hit. ------------------------------ shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) or qed!shadow The QED BBS -- (310)420-9327  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA28826; Wed, 21 Jul 93 05:17:38 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA13303; Wed, 21 Jul 93 06:17:11 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 21 Jul 93 6:17:17 EDT From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Re: MAGIC: the other self / proto-fetch Date: Tue, 20 Jul 93 19:49:28 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <50549096B85@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) writes: > One problem I see in this are initiates of multiple cults. Do these > split their other selves? And how does associate divine magic fit into > this scheme? > > What about mechanisms like Gift POW to ancestor spirits and the > POW-link sorcerers' apprentices create to learn the greater secrets of > maniplation? What about "multi-genre" magicians like cult-shamans, > sorcerer-priests of stygian heresies? Can all these be pressed into a > meta-rule? A problem I have with it, too. In the RQ world I'm running as a playtest, the only intrinsic forbidding of cross-type magic is a social one; the inability to find greater magicians willing to teach higher sorcery to priests or make a full blown shaman a priest. But it's not impossible, and the lower approaches (sorcery and spirit spells, initatiation) happen all the time. > > And... does the team of five have an insight into Greg Stafford's view > of magic for Glorantha? All this meta-ruling works fine for worlds > created by the GMs, and can also be fitted into existing worlds with > less specificly stated views on magic, but RQ4 seems to be stuck with > Glorantha for good or bad. I point I bring up elsewhere. Though I question one thing you say: I'm not sure the "Other Self" concept is altogether compatible with the common range of worldviews of magic, at least outside the shamnanistic mindset. > ------------------------------ shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) or qed!shadow The QED BBS -- (310)420-9327  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA24968; Wed, 21 Jul 93 00:42:37 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA10502; Wed, 21 Jul 93 01:42:02 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 21 Jul 93 1:42:15 EDT From: David Cheng To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: HERESY? (Which) Reality? Date: Wed, 21 Jul 93 1:41:46 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <500B35D42B8@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> # >> David Cheng writes: # >> > I would apply a parallel line of thought to: # >> > # >> > Small 1H Axe (Hatchet) / Average 1H Axe (Battle Axe) # >> # >> > Small 2H Axe (Battleaxe) / Avg 2H Axe (Great Axe) / Big 2H Axe (Poleaxe) # I think David is making a mistake in lumping different _styles_ of weapons into # the same continuum. A Poleaxe is not used in the same fashion as other 2H Axes. # It should be in it's own category. # # We need to differentiate _style_ of use, from weapon. Classes should be defined # by how the weapon is used ( not too far off from how it is now ). The weapons # would vary by size within a class, and from there the damage rating. I don't # think that there is anything unrealistic in this. The categories we currently # have are very coarse amalgams of existing earth weapons, and probably could # be further refined, without great complication. # # Classes of Weapon, by style of use: # # 1H Knife, 1H ShortSword, 1H Sword, 2H Sword, 1H Spear, 2H Spear, # 1H Club/Mace, 2H Club/Mace, 1H Axe, 2H Axe, Halberd, PoleAxe, ... # # Within each of these categories, we rate from tiny to whopping big. # # --------------------------------------------------------------------------- # | john_medway@zycor.lgc.com | Landmark Graphics Corp | 512.292.2325 | # --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is just the thing I want to get away from . Thus, the original header of "avoiding realism" or something like that... I don't care that a poleaxe is not used the same way as a halberd as a great axe, et cetera. Currently, they are all in the '2H Axe' category, and are thus covered by the same skill. Following your line of logic, Halberd and Poleaxe should become different skills. I respect the desire to have realistic rules, but I think this is an area where it can be comfortably sacrificed for simplicity and playability. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. -David Cheng  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA28914; Wed, 21 Jul 93 05:30:38 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA13455; Wed, 21 Jul 93 06:30:10 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 21 Jul 93 6:30:16 EDT From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Re: HERESY? (Which) Reality? Date: Wed, 21 Jul 93 00:27:23 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <505809F12FF@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> David Cheng writes: > > I don't care that a poleaxe is not used the same way as a halberd as > a great axe, et cetera. Currently, they are all in the '2H Axe' > category, and are thus covered by the same skill. Following your > line of logic, Halberd and Poleaxe should become different skills. > Uhm, am I playing by a different playtest set than everyone else? ALL weapon skills are seperate these days: close ones have a 75% overlap, but they ALL progress seperately. ------------------------------ shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) or qed!shadow The QED BBS -- (310)420-9327  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA02065; Wed, 21 Jul 93 08:46:03 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA21649; Wed, 21 Jul 93 09:44:58 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 21 Jul 93 9:45:40 EDT From: "Loren J. Miller" To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: New Damage System Date: 21 Jul 1993 09:46:39 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <508BFDA1072@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> > paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) suggests: (Suggestion for damage system deleted) > i) Small characters will run off the bottom of the table with natural > weapon very easily, doing no damage. I don't think this is a problem. Have you ever had a small child pounding on your legs or belly with all their strength? Did it hurt? Now if they hit your vittles it might hurt but assuming they miss the tender areas it shouldn't cause real damage. Kids don't hurt each other when they roughhouse either, unless they do something spectacular like fall off a building. Heck, it's even hard for my 130 pound girlfriend to hurt me with a full force punch, and I only out-mass her by 50%. And I certainly wouldn't want to have to depend on punching out a 300 pound bruiser to keep him off me. apardon@vub.ac.be (Antoon Pardon) writes: > The trouble with the system as sugested is that IMO it doesn't scale the > same way as the hitpoints. With your suggestion damage done by the weapons > will double if the SIZ doubles. However hitpoints don't as CON is independable > from size. This makes a fight between two giants deadlier than an equivalent > fight between humans. I think this is realistic. For example, superheavyweight boxers knock each other out all the time. It is the standard end to a fight. Flyweight boxers fight til the end of the bout. Their fights typically end by decision. 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 AA29645; Wed, 21 Jul 93 06:40:46 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA17563; Wed, 21 Jul 93 07:40:14 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 21 Jul 93 7:40:13 EDT From: apardon@vub.ac.be (Antoon Pardon) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: New Damage System Date: Wed, 21 Jul 93 13:37:17 MDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <506AB7E56F5@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> > paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) suggests: (Suggestion for damage system deleted) > This has some obvious problems: > > i) Small characters will run off the bottom of the table with natural > weapon very easily, doing no damage. > > It would probably have to be modified to something like: > > Modified DP Damage > -9 - -3 1 > -2 - +0 1d2 > +1 - +3 1d3 > > rest the same as above. This isn't very elegant though. > > ii) It encourages minimaxing, though all the current systems do > that too. > > iii) The importance of weapons decreases as size increases: the > difference between a +2 bonus and a -3 isn't very much to a DP 70 > giant. It's probably better to just punch them. (Actually, that's > a problem with the current system too). i and iii may be solved by given each weapon a factor with which to multiply the base DP instead of a bonus/malus to add. something like Weak natural weapon (punch): 1/3 Average natural weapon (claw/kick): 1/2 Good natural weapon (predator's bite) : 2/3 Assuming weapons are chosen according to str and size: Optimum large 1-H swinging weapon (bastard sword): 3/4 Optimum 2-H swinging weapon (greatsword): 4/3 Optimum 1-H thrusting weapon (spear): 7/12 Optimum light (off-hand) 1-H weapon (ie a dagger): 1/2 Optimum 2-H thrusting weapon : 7/6 This would change the table in something like this: Natural DP Punch Kick Dagger Spear Sword 2-H spear 2-H Sword 8 1d3 1d4 1d4 1d4 1d6 1d10 1d10 10 1d3 1d4 1d4 1d6 1d8 2d6 2d6 13 1d4 1d6 1d6 1d8 1d10 2d8 2d8 14 1d4 1d6 1d6 1d8 1d10 2d8 3d6 16 1d6 1d8 1d8 1d10 2d6 3d6 2d10 18 1d6 1d8 1d8 1d10 2d6 2d10 2d12 20 1d6 1d10 1d10 2d6 2d8 2d12 4d6 > > iv) It seems more complex, though perhaps the standard RQ system would > also seem complex to a newcomer. > > Thoughts, comments, suggestions, opinions, flames... Well I think it very interresting but I would think that any such system should come with suggestions regarding the hitpoint and armour point system. The trouble with the system as sugested is that IMO it doesn't scale the same way as the hitpoints. With your suggestion damage done by the weapons will double if the SIZ doubles. However hitpoints don't as CON is independable from size. This makes a fight between two giants deadlier than an equivalent fight between humans. Something I don't like. IMO if you would put two humans against each other and two giants. Each one with a dagger and would use the same rolls to play each fight I would expect the two fight to continue more or less the same where as now one of the giants will be dead a lot sooner. > > Graeme Lindsell a.k.a gal502@huxley.anu.edu.au -- ======================================================================== 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 AA27823; Wed, 21 Jul 93 03:36:03 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA12352; Wed, 21 Jul 93 04:35:33 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 21 Jul 93 4:35:38 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: New Damage System Date: Wed, 21 Jul 93 18:34:54 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <50397CC7374@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) suggests: >If you are going to make a table that gives variable damage for the >weapon appropriate for a given size and strength, and another table that >give damage bonus based on size and strength, why not just fold both >tables into one and give damage based on the person a la PENDRAGON? (Or >Gurps.) The weapon is basically a tool to store kinetic energy and apply >it in a small area, but the energy is supplied in the first place by the >wielder. The type of weapon would give a bonus or penalty to the base >damage. (Remember that if stats are logarithmic, as I think they are, that >an additive bonus is a multiplier.) Allright, how about something like this: A character has a damage potential equal to the average of strength and size. This potential is modified by weapon used to determine the damage inflicted: Damage Potential (DP) Damage 1 1 2 1d2 3 1d3 4 1d4 6 1d6 8 1d8 10 1d10 12 2d6 16 2d8 18 3d6 20 2d10 24 4d6 or 3d8 i.e the rules are to use dice whose maximum roll equals the DP, not to mix dice and not to use 1d2 1d3 or 1d4 where they can be avoided. Some suggested weapon modifiers to base DP. These are based on the damage of a strength 13, size 13 in the RQIV draft 2.0: Weak natural weapon (punch): -9 Average natural weapon (claw/kick): -6 Good natural weapon (predator's bite) : -4 Assuming weapons are chosen according to str and size: Optimum large 1-H swinging weapon (bastard sword): -3 Optimum 2-H swinging weapon (greatsword): +4 Optimum 1-H thrusting weapon (spear): -5 Optimum light (off-hand) 1-H weapon (ie a dagger): -6 Optimum 2-H thrusting weapon : +2 Thus a strength 13 size 13 person (DP = 13) does a 1d4 punch, a 1d6 kick, and uses a 1d8 1-H spear, a 1d10 1-H sword, a 2d6 2-H spear and a 2d8 2-H sword. Weapons are built to a particular DP : thus in a culture where most fighters are siz13 str13 most swords are 1d10, spears 1d8, 2-H swords 2d8. In another culture where average DP is say 10, these weapons would seem very oversized. Here's a table showing the effect of changing DP: Natural DP Punch Kick Dagger Spear Sword 2-H spear 2-H Sword 8 0 1d2 1d2 1d3 1d4 1d10 2d6 10 1 1d4 1d4 1d4 1d6 2d6 2d6 13 1d4 1d6 1d6 1d8 1d10 2d6 2d8 14 1d4 1d8 1d8 1d8 1d10 2d8 3d6 16 1d8 1d10 1d10 1d10 2d6 3d6 2d10 18 1d8 2d6 2d6 2d6 2d8 2d10 2d10 20 1d10 2d6 2d6 2d6 2d8 2d10 4d6 25 2d8 3d6 3d6 2d10 2d10 4d6 4d6 40 5d6 4d8 4d8 4d8 6d6 7d6 7d6 Excess DP: For every 3 points of DP (average str + siz) you have over that needed by a weapon, you do an extra +1 damage. Thus a DP 13 fighter using a 2d6 2-H spear has a modified DP of 15 for a weapon that does 2d6: therefore the fighter does 2d6+1 damage. (basically, the idea is to make excess strength & size less effective than using a proper weapon. Every 6 DP you'll get another 1d6 damage anyway, which is better than taking the +2 damage that it'll get you using an inferior weapon. This also makes using very small weapons totally useless to large characters: a size 25 str 25 great troll using a 1d4 elvish dagger will do 1d4 + 5 damage as opposed to 2d8 with his fist...) Inadequate DP: for every point of modified DP less than the weapon needs, you do 1 point less damage. (ie not that useful, though a DP 14 character may prefer a 2d6-1 sword to a 1d10 sword) This has some obvious problems: i) Small characters will run off the bottom of the table with natural weapon very easily, doing no damage. It would probably have to be modified to something like: Modified DP Damage -9 - -3 1 -2 - +0 1d2 +1 - +3 1d3 rest the same as above. This isn't very elegant though. ii) It encourages minimaxing, though all the current systems do that too. iii) The importance of weapons decreases as size increases: the difference between a +2 bonus and a -3 isn't very much to a DP 70 giant. It's probably better to just punch them. (Actually, that's a problem with the current system too). iv) It seems more complex, though perhaps the standard RQ system would also seem complex to a newcomer. Thoughts, comments, suggestions, opinions, flames... 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 AA01340; Wed, 21 Jul 93 19:27:23 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA16895; Wed, 21 Jul 93 20:26:43 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 21 Jul 93 20:26:58 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: New Damage System Date: Thu, 22 Jul 93 10:26:11 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <51372C307DE@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Graeme here replying to Antoon who appeared to think he was replying to Paul though he was replying to Graeme who was replying to Paul... > > > paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) suggests: > > (Suggestion for damage system deleted) > > This has some obvious problems: Actually I suggested the mechanics for the damage system: my signature's at the bottom. I was replying to Paul suggestion. (Just clarifying things) > > i and iii may be solved by given each weapon a factor with which to multiply > the base DP instead of a bonus/malus to add. > > something like > > Weak natural weapon (punch): 1/3 > > Average natural weapon (claw/kick): 1/2 etc. Yes, this could be better. It has the reverse problem: using a larger weapon becomes more of an advantage at higher DP, rather than less. > > > This would change the table in something like this: > > Natural DP Punch Kick Dagger Spear Sword 2-H spear 2-H Sword > > 8 1d3 1d4 1d4 1d4 1d6 1d10 1d10 > 10 1d3 1d4 1d4 1d6 1d8 2d6 2d6 etc. Note I didn't use the d12 at all: it was dropped from RQ III and any use of d12 can use 2d6. In a situation where two different dice can be used ie DP 30 = 5d6 or 3d10, the player can choose which set to use. 5d6 has the higher average (17.5 against 16.5) but 3d10 will roll 30 a lot more often. > > > > iv) It seems more complex, though perhaps the standard RQ system would > > also seem complex to a newcomer. > > > > Thoughts, comments, suggestions, opinions, flames... > > Well I think it very interresting but I would think that any such system > should come with suggestions regarding the hitpoint and armour point system. Yes, I was thinking about some proposals there as well. I think a system where HP = Siz + Con, and death occurs at zero HP is better than the current system of HP = (Siz + Con)/2 and death occurs at negative max HP. > > The trouble with the system as sugested is that IMO it doesn't scale the > same way as the hitpoints. With your suggestion damage done by the weapons > will double if the SIZ doubles. However hitpoints don't as CON is independable Not a problem with the HP system above. Armour is more of a problem, as the RQIII system scales negatively with size, and strength is unrelated with size. Does anyone know what the current stae of play with these rules in the IV draft? > ======================================================================== > Antoon Pardon > Brussels Free University Computing Centre 02/650.37.16 > ======================================================================== > 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 AA16053; Fri, 23 Jul 93 11:10:19 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA23453; Fri, 23 Jul 93 12:09:36 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 23 Jul 93 12:09:56 EDT From: burt@ptltd.com (Burton Choinski) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: DAMAGE Date: Fri, 23 Jul 93 12:05:52 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <53B2AF35119@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Graeme A Lindsell puts forth a damage table: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- %%Damage Potential (DP) Damage %% 1 1 %% 2 1d2 %% 3 1d3 %% 4 1d4 %% 6 1d6 %% 8 1d8 %% 10 1d10 %% 12 2d6 %% 16 2d8 %% 18 3d6 %% 20 2d10 %% 24 4d6 or 3d8 Only problem is that Trolls will be an even bigger menace then they are now. I already. It is a nice idea though...how about the following: Roll d6 for Damage STR+SIZ+WEAP 1 2 3 4 5 6 15- 1 1 1 1 1 1 16-20 1 1 1 1 1 2 21-25 1 1 1 1 2 2 26-30 1 1 1 2 2 2 31-35 1 1 1 2 2 3 36-40 1 1 2 2 3 3 41-45 1 1 2 2 3 4 46-50 1 1 2 3 4 5 51-55 1 2 3 4 5 6 56-60 1 2 3 5 6 7 61-65 1 2 4 5 7 8 66-70 1 2 4 6 8 9 71-80 1 3 5 6 8 10 81-85 1 3 5 7 9 11 86-90 2 4 6 8 10 12 and so on. Everyone uses d6's :) WEAP is the current max damage of the weapon x5. A RQ4 draft weapon with a damage of 1d8 would have a WEAP of +40. Thus, a duck (SIZ 5, STR 10) using it would look on the 55 index, doing about 1d6. Only problem with it is that one needs a table look up. Now, that can be reduced by leaving space on the Char Sheet: Att:[ ]% ______________ SR[ ] Dam:[ | | | | | ] Par:[ ]% -- Burton  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA27088; Fri, 23 Jul 93 15:21:39 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA05530; Fri, 23 Jul 93 16:21:04 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 23 Jul 93 16:21:08 EDT From: burt@ptltd.com (Burton Choinski) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: HERESY! Date: Fri, 23 Jul 93 16:17:20 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <53F5C0D6446@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Just musing, but do we REALLY gain much in using % skills over d20 skills? Granted, d20 is more granular, but keep in mind that not every new system nowdays used percentile. Yes, it's a thowback to RQ2, but really, since every modifier is a factor of 5%, niggling little 1% items seem to be just overhead, and do they REALLY add that much to play? Now, since you don't want skills to vary so much, one can keep in mind experience marks for each skill. every 5 marks get you one skill increase, keep track of the remainders. Really, this just struck me. EVERYTHING is so based around factor of 5 that it seems the easiest way to streamline is to smooth the lines. -- Burton  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA01371; Fri, 23 Jul 93 17:00:22 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA08987; Fri, 23 Jul 93 17:59:56 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 23 Jul 93 17:59:58 EDT From: curtiss@netcom.com (Curtis Shenton) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Question Date: Fri, 23 Jul 93 15:00:20 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <541020953DD@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> I have a quick question for everyone here. Why wouldn't I use the new Elric rules from Chaosium and just graft on the magic systems from RQIV to play Glorantha? What is it about RQIV that is going to make this a better game for Glorantha than Elric? And this is a serious question. I really do want to know what features RQIV is going to have that will make it a good game in everyone's opinion. -- Curtis Shenton curtiss@netcom.com internet & 4@3091 WWIVnet Currently designing a fantasy setting for WotC. If you are interested in baroque steampunk technology in a fantasy setting and want to playtest email me and I'll give you the info on joining the mailing list.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA00467; Fri, 23 Jul 93 16:41:17 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA08389; Fri, 23 Jul 93 17:40:49 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 23 Jul 93 17:40:53 EDT From: "Roderick Robertson, SC1-5, x52936" To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: HERESY! Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1993 14:24 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <540B06F2F8A@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> >Just musing, but do we REALLY gain much in using % skills over d20 skills? >Granted, d20 is more granular, but keep in mind that not every new system >nowdays used percentile. >Yes, it's a thowback to RQ2, but really, since every modifier is a factor >of 5%, niggling little 1% items seem to be just overhead, and do they >REALLY add that much to play? A bit of History, its a throwback to RQI (sortof), not II. RQI skill modifiers went up in 5% intervals as did skills (if I remember, its been a while). RQII changed it to the percentiles we know and love. >Now, since you don't want skills to vary so much, one can keep in mind >experience marks for each skill. every 5 marks get you one skill increase, >keep track of the remainders. >Really, this just struck me. EVERYTHING is so based around factor of 5 that >it seems the easiest way to streamline is to smooth the lines. > -- Burton No, everything is *not* based around 5, it just looks that way. I often use 1,2 or 3 as a number for Pow, Str, etc. rolls. (for some reason I *rarely* use 4...). I also subtract or divide for difficult endeavours. In my opinion, its a step backwards, not forwards (You know, we could try to roll high instead of low, and hey, why not have classes, like Priest and Warrior and Thief, and all spells could be one use per day... Soon the slide down to role-playing hell begins). Besides the backward-compatibility issue (a big one), the Percentile-based system makes the most sense (to me). What *looks* easier to understand: chance to hit 43% or chance to hit 8? This idea truely deserves to be burned at the stake, as the percentile system IS THE HEART of the RuneQuest system (more than Battle/Spirit Magic, Rune/Divine Magic, Weapon Damage, or Armor by Location). Just my two Lunars, Roderick  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA02970; Fri, 23 Jul 93 17:27:37 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA09663; Fri, 23 Jul 93 18:27:11 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 23 Jul 93 18:27:14 EDT From: Pete c/o Tom Yates To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: _Elric_ RQ and Simplicity/Realism Date: Fri, 23 Jul 93 18:30:22 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <5417616516C@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> *Curtis Shenton wrote: > I have a quick question for everyone here. Why wouldn't I use the new > Elric rules from Chaosium and just graft on the magic systems from > RQIV to play Glorantha? What is it about RQIV that is going to make > this a better game for Glorantha than Elric? I don't know -- _Elric_ hasn't made it out here yet. What're the rules like? Personally, if the rules are simpler, I might go for them. Everyone seems to assume that simpler mechanics inevitably result in a less realistic system. Some folks seem to feel that this principle may be inverted, as well: more complex rules produce a more realistic game. This is not necessarily true, I think. Is it really necessary to produce a rules system that can realistically simulate such a vast range of possible actions? Perhaps it would be a better idea to simply incorporate into the rules a simple statement to the effect that unless otherwise dictated by magic or supernatural effects, common sense and logic are the guiding principles for game-world actions and events. I mean, at the rate things are going the basic RQIV book is going to be bigger than the entire line of AD&D garbage! Many people I know refuse to play RQ because they feel that it's an unlearnable and overly- massive system. How are they going to react to the grossities that seem to be in the works? If RuneQuest IV fails to pull in new players then the system is not going to go anywhere, and may well become a Net-only affair. If that. In any case, if the rumors about Ken Rolston no longer being RQ Czar are true...is there a new RQ Czar? If not, I shudder to think what might happen to RQIV. Maybe Nick Atlas will be re-hired to do a rush job. 8^O} -->Pete ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Maranci Malden, Massachusetts pete@slough.mit.edu or rune@trystero.com "Hey! Your Tien fell in my Atyar!" "Well, your Atyar got in my Tien!" Thanatar -- two great Chaos Gods that go great together!  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA03617; Fri, 23 Jul 93 17:42:35 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA09980; Fri, 23 Jul 93 18:42:06 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 23 Jul 93 18:42:07 EDT From: curtiss@netcom.com (Curtis Shenton) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: _Elric_ RQ and Simplicity/Realism Date: Fri, 23 Jul 93 15:42:38 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <541B61C188C@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> > Everyone seems to assume that simpler mechanics inevitably > result in a less realistic system. Some folks seem to feel that this > principle may be inverted, as well: more complex rules produce a more > realistic game. This is not necessarily true, I think. I agree. And I think the only excuse for complicated rules is realism. If the rules are complex and/or combat is slow and the game isn't very realistic then their is something wrong with the game. I don't think Glorantha demands some higher level of realism than the world of Elric yet it seems(I haven't yet seen playtest copy of RQIV) that RQIV is going to be a much more complictaed game. > > Is it really necessary to produce a rules system that can > realistically simulate such a vast range of possible actions? > Perhaps it would be a better idea to simply incorporate into the > rules a simple statement to the effect that unless otherwise dictated > by magic or supernatural effects, common sense and logic are the > guiding principles for game-world actions and events. > > I mean, at the rate things are going the basic RQIV book is going > to be bigger than the entire line of AD&D garbage! Many people I know > refuse to play RQ because they feel that it's an unlearnable and overly- > massive system. How are they going to react to the grossities that seem > to be in the works? If RuneQuest IV fails to pull in new players then > the system is not going to go anywhere, and may well become a Net-only > affair. If that. I'd like to see a simple and elegant system rather than a system bigger than RQIII. I'm all in favor of RQ Lite myself. And from what I've ehard from people who've spoken to Greg he's in favor of a simpler game than RQIII too. > > In any case, if the rumors about Ken Rolston no longer being > RQ Czar are true...is there a new RQ Czar? If not, I shudder to think > what might happen to RQIV. Maybe Nick Atlas will be re-hired to do > a rush job. 8^O} I hope Ken sticks around. But even if the rumors are right and he's just going to be a freelance editor for AH I think RQ can still do well. Even AH isn't stupid enough to hire Nick Atlas back. > > -->Pete > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Peter Maranci Malden, Massachusetts > pete@slough.mit.edu or rune@trystero.com > "Hey! Your Tien fell in my Atyar!" "Well, your Atyar got in my Tien!" > Thanatar -- two great Chaos Gods that go great together! > -- Curtis Shenton curtiss@netcom.com internet & 4@3091 WWIVnet Currently designing a fantasy setting for WotC. If you are interested in baroque steampunk technology in a fantasy setting and want to playtest email me and I'll give you the info on joining the mailing list.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA27258; Sat, 24 Jul 93 20:35:42 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA02167; Sat, 24 Jul 93 21:34:56 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 24 Jul 93 21:35:20 EDT From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: HERESY! Date: Sat, 24 Jul 93 03:48:59 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <55C97C7766A@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> burt@ptltd.com (Burton Choinski) writes: > Just musing, but do we REALLY gain much in using % skills over d20 skills? > Granted, d20 is more granular, but keep in mind that not every new system > nowdays used percentile. If we're going to follow current trends, RQ4 will not even be recognizeable. Most modern games have gone the "simplicity at any cost" route, which usually means masses of totalled D6s, or at most the "roll multiple D6/D10 and compare to target number" approach present in SR and the WW systems. The big advantage to %, besides allowing more delicate progression, is that you can embed critical/fumble/special results in the single die roll instead of having to deal with them seperately. > > Yes, it's a thowback to RQ2, but really, since every modifier is a factor > of 5%, niggling little 1% items seem to be just overhead, and do they > REALLY add that much to play? Individually, no. The ability to make distinctions like the Easy/Medium/Hard business, I think adds a lot. > > Now, since you don't want skills to vary so much, one can keep in mind > experience marks for each skill. every 5 marks get you one skill increase, > keep track of the remainders. That's linear increase. A remarkably bad idea. One of the strengths of the RQ skill progression has always been the way it tends to flatten out. Eliminating that does NOT strike me as an improvement. > > Really, this just struck me. EVERYTHING is so based around factor of 5 that > it seems the easiest way to streamline is to smooth the lines. And seems to me to throw out a lot of baby with the bathwater. Wayne ------------------------------ shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) or qed!shadow The QED BBS -- (310)420-9327  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA27264; Sat, 24 Jul 93 20:35:47 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA02170; Sat, 24 Jul 93 21:35:19 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 24 Jul 93 21:35:23 EDT From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Question Date: Sat, 24 Jul 93 03:56:36 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <55C97CF425B@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> curtiss@netcom.netcom.com (Curtis Shenton) writes: > I have a quick question for everyone here. Why wouldn't I use the new > Elric rules from Chaosium and just graft on the magic systems from RQIV > to play Glorantha? What is it about RQIV that is going to make this a > better game for Glorantha than Elric? And this is a serious question. I > really do want to know what features RQIV is going to have that will > make it a good game in everyone's opinion. Unfortunately, not having read the Elric rules, it is hard to intelligently compare. My questions would be: does it deal with the issue of attribute effects on skills? (old Stormbringer did a poor job of this); is the previous experience flexible? (ditto); does it make distinctions between skill difficulties usefully? (a positive feature of the new improvement system that has broad consequences); does it not paper over important combat decisions in play? Basically, does it avoid simple-mindedness? There's plenty of games out there you could shoehorn Glorantha into; my question is, how many have sold their souls on the alter of symplicity at an unreasonable price? > ------------------------------ shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) or qed!shadow The QED BBS -- (310)420-9327  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA27270; Sat, 24 Jul 93 20:35:53 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA02177; Sat, 24 Jul 93 21:35:23 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 24 Jul 93 21:35:27 EDT From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Re: _Elric_ RQ and Simplicity/Realism Date: Sat, 24 Jul 93 04:02:19 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <55C97D82EF3@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> curtiss@netcom.netcom.com (Curtis Shenton) writes: > > I agree. And I think the only excuse for complicated rules is realism. > If the rules are complex and/or combat is slow and the game isn't very > realistic then their is something wrong with the game. I don't think > Glorantha demands some higher level of realism than the world of Elric > yet it seems(I haven't yet seen playtest copy of RQIV) that RQIV is > going to be a much more complictaed game. This begs the question as to whether Elric does a sophisticated enough job for the setting IT's in. Simplicity is only a virtue as far as when it does the job. There are plenty of simple systems out there; most of them are also middlin' mindless in one area or another. If that's the route RQIV is going to take, there's mighty little point in my being involved in the playtest, because they're just reinventing the wheel. > > I'd like to see a simple and elegant system rather than a system bigger > than RQIII. I'm all in favor of RQ Lite myself. And from what I've ehard > from people who've spoken to Greg he's in favor of a simpler game than > RQIII too. I'm frankly bemused. In a world that contains GURPS, the Hero System, Rolemaster and others, do people really think of RQIII as a "big" system? Compared to what? Does everything have to be stripped down to the mechanical level of Talislanta? > > I hope Ken sticks around. But even if the rumors are right and he's just > going to be a freelance editor for AH I think RQ can still do well. Even > AH isn't stupid enough to hire Nick Atlas back. Gods, i would hope not. ------------------------------ shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) or qed!shadow The QED BBS -- (310)420-9327  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA27276; Sat, 24 Jul 93 20:35:55 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA02180; Sat, 24 Jul 93 21:35:26 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 24 Jul 93 21:35:30 EDT From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: _Elric_ RQ and Simplicity/Realism Date: Sat, 24 Jul 93 04:13:11 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <55C9896411D@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Pete c/o Tom Yates writes: > Everyone seems to assume that simpler mechanics inevitably > result in a less realistic system. Some folks seem to feel that this > principle may be inverted, as well: more complex rules produce a more > realistic game. This is not necessarily true, I think. No, because I think you have that backwards. All other things being equal, a more realistic game, to some extent or another requires either more complex rules or more GM fiat. There isn't a lot of third cases. > > Is it really necessary to produce a rules system that can > realistically simulate such a vast range of possible actions? > Perhaps it would be a better idea to simply incorporate into the > rules a simple statement to the effect that unless otherwise dictated > by magic or supernatural effects, common sense and logic are the > guiding principles for game-world actions and events. The problem is that the primary function of rules is to avoid dumping just this sort of load on a GM. For common cases, I shouldn't have to decide how to deal with the proper way of handling a situation in the rules: it either should be spelled out or self-evident. "Common sense" because a term of remarkably slippery meaning as soon as it comes time to fit events into game mechanics; even more so when the situation is somewhat outside the experience of the GM. For example, I've seen a number of GMs make "common sense" assumptions about the limits of how far a horse can march in a day relative to a human that don't match reality, just because the impressions many people are given in this area are faulty. Similarly, the ideas that people get about weapons use from watching movies are only useful if the game is supposed to simulate cinematic reality. One of the purposes of rules are to do the necessary pre-research so that the GM DOESN'T need to know much about these subjects just to run the game. > > I mean, at the rate things are going the basic RQIV book is going > to be bigger than the entire line of AD&D garbage! Many people I know > refuse to play RQ because they feel that it's an unlearnable and overly- > massive system. How are they going to react to the grossities that seem > to be in the works? If RuneQuest IV fails to pull in new players then > the system is not going to go anywhere, and may well become a Net-only > affair. If that. Frankly, I don't think we should be hunting for the people who can't handle something more sophisticated mechanically than StarWars. Nothing I've seen in the playtest drafts to date compares in overall complexity to Hero, GURPS or Rolemaster, just to name a few. If we're trying to compete by keeping the complexity down where the Palladium people can handle it, I think we've lost before we started. ------------------------------ shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) or qed!shadow The QED BBS -- (310)420-9327  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA07122; Sun, 25 Jul 93 11:53:09 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA14336; Sun, 25 Jul 93 12:52:28 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 25 Jul 93 12:52:41 EDT From: David Cheng To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: HERESY! Date: Sun, 25 Jul 93 12:52:08 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <56BE3A15BA3@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> # The big advantage to %, besides allowing more delicate progression, is # that you can embed critical/fumble/special results in the single die roll # instead of having to deal with them seperately. # Individually, no. The ability to make distinctions like the # Easy/Medium/Hard business, I think adds a lot. # shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) or qed!shadow I agree with Wayne wholeheartedly on these points. I am strongly against moving away from the percentile system of skill resolution, for all the reasons Wayne lists. -David Cheng drcheng@sales.stern.nyu.edu / d.cheng@genie.geis.com Ask me about RQ-Con! 313 E 85th St #2C, NY NY 10028 212-472-7752  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA12372; Sun, 25 Jul 93 13:20:33 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA15272; Sun, 25 Jul 93 14:19:55 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 25 Jul 93 14:20:06 EDT From: Pete c/o Tom Yates To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: _Elric_ RQ and Simplicity/Realism Date: Sun, 25 Jul 93 14:23:17 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <56D590756CE@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> *Wayne Shaw writes: WS>PM> Everyone seems to assume that simpler mechanics inevitably WS>PM> result in a less realistic system. Some folks seem to feel that t WS>PM> principle may be inverted, as well: more complex rules produce a WS>PM> realistic game. This is not necessarily true, I think. WS> WS> No, because I think you have that backwards. All other things WS> being equal, a more realistic game, to some extent or another WS> requires either more complex rules or more GM fiat. I can't agree with this -- though perhaps our disagreement hinges upon some of those "other things". Seems to me that a simple set of widely-applicable rules can cover almost any situation as well as a complex rules system, without necessarily sacrificing realism! The resistance roll is a great example of this. It's a simple mechanic that clearly embodies some sort of basic truth of the physics of Glorantha (say! is that a secret of the God Learners, I wonder?). You could base 90% of the mechanics of a game on a rule as effective as that! Regarding GM's and common sense: I've known few other RQ GMs, unfortunately. All the ones I've met, however, seemed like competant folk who wouldn't have a problem dealing with this sort of issue on the fly. Of course, some things can't be left to common sense: most magic, for example, and in such cases as the distance a horse can travel in a day, I suppose a *simple* list of animals and movement speeds along with a *few* sample modifiers would be a good idea. But that wouldn't require any more complication than in RQ2! I must point out that if a GM is going to have trouble applying common sense to appropriate situation, they're hardly likely to work well with a massive rules system -- that is, unless we're positing that RQ GMs tend to be math-oriented wonks who lack the basic skills needed to make a quick reasonable decision and make it stick. I'd argue with that position... WS> Frankly, I don't think we should be hunting for the people who WS> can't handle something more sophisticated mechanically than WS> StarWars. Nothing I've seen in the playtest drafts to date WS> compares in overall complexity to Hero, GURPS or Rolemaster, just WS> to name a few. If we're trying to compete by keeping the WS> complexity down where the Palladium people can handle it, I think WS> we've lost before we started. I'm not advocating a simpler rules system just to accomodate the feebs and mental midgets of the non-RQ gaming world. The fact is that a more complex rule system takes longer to play -- I think we can all agree on that? And time spent on the mechanics is time *not* spent on roleplaying -- in fact, it's arguable that working with mechanics forces you to break out of the roleplaying viewpoint, thereby actually decreasing the gaming experience. I suppose that RQ4 could be developed and sold as a computer program only, with GMs and players simply entering all their actions into the program and recieving the mathematically exact result back. But if it's possible to use a few basic rules to provide a system that's realistic *enough* for enjoyable play, why should we torture ourselves? -->Pete ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Maranci Malden, Massachusetts pete@slough.mit.edu or rune@trystero.com "If you don't want to kiss Duke Munchkin's ass, you can pretty much kiss your own goodbye." -- Traditional NERO saying (spurious)  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA00443; Mon, 26 Jul 93 04:30:17 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25999; Mon, 26 Jul 93 05:29:24 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 26 Jul 93 5:29:52 EDT From: davidc@cs.uwa.edu.au (David Cake) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Rules simplicity Date: Mon, 26 Jul 93 17:27:14 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <57C80FB723D@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> There is a great deal of difference between systems that have complex rules systems, systems that have complete rules systems, and systems that are complicated to play. I hope that made sense. It is possible to make a rules system that is very complicated, difficult to play, and doesn't add much realism. Thats is what I think Rolemaster does, and thats why I don't play it. It is possible to have systems that have simple basic mechanics, but are complicated in practice by their completeness. A perfect example is original Traveller, where knowing all the important rules was easy for a player, but in practice it was very dificult to have complete knowledge of the system, because of the number of areas covered by special rules. I like games like this! If RQ4 is big, that is not a problem as far as I am concerned. If RQ4 is difficult to play because of rules that are complicated or clumsy (and Rolemaster is both, IMHO) then it will be bad. However, I have found relatively little that makes me think that it will be like it. Some things I could do without in my game, but if I can just ignore them that is fine. In fact it is best if I can just ignore (say) the fatigue rules most of the time, and when I find an adventure that needs them (like maybe the Garhound contest in parts) then I'll look them up. We should keep the core rules small, yes. Combat, as far as I am concerned, has actually got easier to run in RQ4. The extra rules (like special combat options) are not used except when I want them to be, and the rules for number of combat actions are now much clearer, so tricky questions can be resolved quicker. I know I can just make a GM call, but often I'd rather make a considered GM judgement that answers the question once and for all than a off the cuff judgement. And some rules I just don't use, but I am glad that they are there. For example the optional movement rules using a hex-grid or similar are of no use to me currently. When I get around to getting some figure type thingies (anyone got a good cheap alternative?) and a map sheet I'll use them, so I'm glad that they're there. The RQ4 magic system is going to be complicated. But not because it has particularly hideous mechanics, the mechanics are fairly simple. But the magic system must simulate many different things, and gives some people many different capabilities. It is complicated because magic is complicated, not because the rules are complicated. Try and think about what level of description and how many things we are describing with the magic system. Think about how complicated the things magicians can do, the variety of magic practitioners, etc. If you described it without game speak it would be complicated still. As long as we don't add unnecesary complication to simulate that. I really like the RQ4 character creation rules. They take longer to explain than RQ3 or RQ2, to create a simple character (a classic beginning PC). However they are much more flexible, not much more complex in practice, and require a lot less intervention from the GM. I like to run short term campaigns with special PCs (for eexample one campaign had the players as the tribal leaders of a Praxian tribe, who made decisions on behalf of the tribe, and ended up both HeroQUesting, and leading the tribe into mass battles). The system is much better for anything unusual, because I can say 'you have this many points and these restrictions', and they require only accasional guidelines. Previous systems required excessive tweaking to get reasonable characters (eg appropriate cult skills, weapon skills not too absurd in experienced warriors). RQ2 was even worse, if you didn't want to be a barbarian or mercenary. For me, though more complex in concept, the system is much simpler in practice because it is more complete and flexible so there is less work for me to do at most character creation sessions. BTW, why is that people complain about the Esasy/Medium/Hard skills, but none of the RQ2 supporters have yet mentioned that they are glad to see it back? This system existed pretty much in RQ2 for training, it was just explained very badly. To summarise, it is possible for a game to be complicated in its entirity because it is complete and broad in scope, but simple in practice because it has fairly simple basic mechanics. It is possible for a game to have a lot of rules because it has rules for a lot of things, rather than because to do any simple thing requires lots of rules. If we are to make RQ4 a game that appeals to both the people that like lots of rules, and the people that prefer to use their own judgement all the time, then that is the sort of game we should be aiming for, simple basics, but complete. Cheers Dave Cake  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA09386; Mon, 26 Jul 93 07:13:38 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA00453; Mon, 26 Jul 93 07:15:37 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 26 Jul 93 7:15:42 EDT From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Re: _Elric_ RQ and Simplicity/Realism Date: Mon, 26 Jul 93 03:24:07 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <57E469F330E@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Pete c/o Tom Yates writes: > I can't agree with this -- though perhaps our disagreement > hinges upon some of those "other things". Seems to me that a simple > set of widely-applicable rules can cover almost any situation as > well as a complex rules system, without necessarily sacrificing > realism! The resistance roll is a great example of this. It's a > simple mechanic that clearly embodies some sort of basic truth of > the physics of Glorantha (say! is that a secret of the God Learners, > I wonder?). You could base 90% of the mechanics of a game on a rule > as effective as that! I have no problem with simple basic mechanics: when truth is told, RQ only has three mechanics: the skill percentage, the resistance roll, and the stat roll. But I think there are areas that DESERVE elaboration. The reason that the combat systems classically get the attention and detail they do is that combat is the only area that a character routinely gets into that can be life-or-death for the character; in those sorts of situation, the more control you have over the situation (via combat options and the like) the better. Some other areas do not require as much (most games are not likely to focus on knowledge skill use and research so heavily that a detail level about what is already present is necessary or even desireable). Of course, in different campaings, milage may vary, but ANY game system makes some decisions as to how it expects play to go. > > Regarding GM's and common sense: I've known few other RQ GMs, > unfortunately. All the ones I've met, however, seemed like competant > folk who wouldn't have a problem dealing with this sort of issue > on the fly. Of course, some things can't be left to common sense: > most magic, for example, and in such cases as the distance a horse > can travel in a day, I suppose a *simple* list of animals and movement > speeds along with a *few* sample modifiers would be a good idea. But > that wouldn't require any more complication than in RQ2! I have to stand by my original post with this: I've been running games since 1975, and running RQ intermittantly since RQI. But I still find that the more sample cases I have to work from, the easier it is to extrapolate to the odd ones. When trying to do any sort of extrapolation, ten data points are more useful than one. I have to also make an argument: outside of the extra combat options and the fatigue system (which I consider net gains well worth any extra complexity they add) I'd argue the current draft ISN'T any more complex than RQ2; it's more detailed in areas (the issue of how conflicting skills work; we never resolved the stealth vs. perception question adequately) but I don't see any great increase in complexity. > > I must point out that if a GM is going to have trouble applying > common sense to appropriate situation, they're hardly likely to work > well with a massive rules system -- that is, unless we're positing that > RQ GMs tend to be math-oriented wonks who lack the basic skills needed > to make a quick reasonable decision and make it stick. I'd argue with > that position... No, I'm positing that there's a difference between not liking to make decisions and not liking to be arbitrary. When I'm playing a game, I like to have a pretty good idea what's likely to happen if I do something; not have to second guess whether the GM and I have such a different perception of events that my idea of results and his are going out of kilter, or even worse, that his are not going to be consistent from one time to the next. If the rules describe a process for hiding versus someone looking for you, I can look at them, the situation, and my skill, and make some sort of intelligent decision about it. If it doesn't, anything can happen. I'd rather know about rules I disagree with than operate in the dark, dependent on GM fiat. > I'm not advocating a simpler rules system just to accomodate > the feebs and mental midgets of the non-RQ gaming world. The fact is > that a more complex rule system takes longer to play -- I think we > can all agree on that? And time spent on the mechanics is time *not* > spent on roleplaying -- in fact, it's arguable that working with > mechanics forces you to break out of the roleplaying viewpoint, > thereby actually decreasing the gaming experience. Guy, you've come to the wrong address: on the classic breakdown, I'm as much of a simulationist/wargamer as I am a "roleplayer" in the pure sense of the word; I find games (at least properly designed ones) interesting for the "game" value as much as the RP support, and don't consider a modicum of mechanics that enhances the former a deficit. I'd rather have a longer combat that I feel involved with than a shorter one that's overly abstract. > > I suppose that RQ4 could be developed and sold as a computer > program only, with GMs and players simply entering all their actions > into the program and recieving the mathematically exact result back. > But if it's possible to use a few basic rules to provide a system > that's realistic *enough* for enjoyable play, why should we torture > ourselves? > Because I hardly consider the current level of complexity torture, and don't necessarily think simpler rules would make for a more fun game. OD&D was a simple game. But after a while, I hardly found it a fun one. ------------------------------ shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) or qed!shadow The QED BBS -- (310)420-9327  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA05671; Mon, 26 Jul 93 05:55:41 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA26750; Mon, 26 Jul 93 06:55:14 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 26 Jul 93 6:55:18 EDT From: Malcolm Cohen To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Rules simplicity Date: Mon, 26 Jul 93 11:54:22 MET Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <57DEF6366C6@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> > experienced warriors). RQ2 was even worse, if you didn't want to be a > barbarian or mercenary. For me, though more complex in concept, the system is I disagree; RQ2 had a simple principle (get N weeks of training per year of apprenticeship). Although this was only fully fleshed out for mercenary types, I did not find it too difficult to set out appropriate templates for a couple of other occupations in my campaign at the time. RQ3 training was really the pits; complicated, youngish characters were too weak, most characters came out with boring skill lists and insufficiently specialised. > BTW, why is that people complain about the Esasy/Medium/Hard skills, > but none of the RQ2 supporters have yet mentioned that they are glad to see it > back? This system existed pretty much in RQ2 for training, it was just > explained very badly. Well, I am glad to see it back! And I am glad that it has been simplified; the RQ2 way *was* unnecessarily messy (as well as only affecting training). -- ...........................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 AA10705; Mon, 26 Jul 93 08:27:13 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA03612; Mon, 26 Jul 93 09:26:41 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 26 Jul 93 9:26:47 EDT From: burt@ptltd.com (Burton Choinski) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: REPLIES Date: Mon, 26 Jul 93 09:22:41 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <58075AC01D8@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> First off, I get the G.L. treatment for a moment of weakness...:) =============================================================================== Roderick Robertson: %% >Yes, it's a thowback to RQ2, but really, since every modifier is a factor %% >of 5%, niggling little 1% items seem to be just overhead, and do they %% >REALLY add that much to play? %% %% A bit of History, its a throwback to RQI (sortof), not II. RQI skill %% modifiers went up in 5% intervals as did skills (if I remember, its been %% a while). RQII changed it to the percentiles we know and love. Okay. my mistake. I first got into RQ at RQIII. %% >Really, this just struck me. EVERYTHING is so based around factor of 5 %% >that it seems the easiest way to streamline is to smooth the lines. %% > -- Burton %% %% No, everything is *not* based around 5, it just looks that way. I %% often use 1,2 or 3 as a number for Pow, Str, etc. rolls. (for some %% reason I *rarely* use 4...). I also subtract or divide for difficult %% endeavours. True. %% In my opinion, its a step backwards, not forwards (You know, we %% could try to roll high instead of low, and hey, why not have classes, %% like Priest and Warrior and Thief, and all spells could be one use per %% day... Soon the slide down to role-playing hell begins). *smirk* What I meant was that nowdays there are about as many percentile systems as there are numeric systems, and neither is necessarily better then the other. %% Besides the backward-compatibility issue (a big one), the %% Percentile-based system makes the most sense (to me). What *looks* %% easier to understand: chance to hit 43% or chance to hit 8? Well, I thought that RQ2 was d20 based, not d100, so I figured it wasn't much of a roll-back. And I think either of the above are easy to understand, be it 40% chance to hit or 'roll 8-'. %% This idea truely deserves to be burned at the stake, as the %% percentile system IS THE HEART of the RuneQuest system (more than %% Battle/Spirit Magic, Rune/Divine Magic, Weapon Damage, or Armor by %% Location). Actually, I think the heart of the system is it's core ideas, not the dice it uses. A while back (before the draft, about a year ago) I tried to get my group interested in RQ, but they were not all that happy with the RQIII rules...so we tried using GURPS. Granted, there were some very different things, but some parts of the attempt felt right, namely the skills (which the 2.0 draft kinda-sorta feels like) and the combat system. In theory, you could just as well run RQ on a d30, if you converted all the numbers in the rules. Wayne Shaw continues: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- %% > Just musing, but do we REALLY gain much in using % skills over d20 skills? %% > Granted, d20 is more granular, but keep in mind that not every new system %% > nowdays used percentile. %% %% If we're going to follow current trends, RQ4 will not even be %% recognizeable. Most modern games have gone the "simplicity at any cost" %% route, which usually means masses of totalled D6s, or at most the "roll %% multiple D6/D10 and compare to target number" approach present in SR and %% the WW systems. I didn't propose the basic be changed, just that less divisions be used. %% > %% > Now, since you don't want skills to vary so much, one can keep in mind %% > experience marks for each skill. every 5 marks get you one skill %% > increase, keep track of the remainders. %% %% That's linear increase. A remarkably bad idea. One of the strengths of %% the RQ skill progression has always been the way it tends to flatten out. %% Eliminating that does NOT strike me as an improvement. You misunderstand...I definitlly did not explain that very well. What I meant was that since the skills when using a d20 is divided by five, you take the .2, .4 etc fractions as marks. An easy skill would increase (if you made your roll) by 2d6 marks. Every 5 marks counts as +1 to your actual skill. So a guy with a skill of 17 and 3 marks gets 1d6 marks added. He now has, say 7 marks. Well, 5 marks pays for the skill up to 18, leaving 2 left. I didn't propose the chucking of the normal skill progression...I like that part of the skill system. I was just trying to demonstrate a way to keep it with a d20 system. Overall, I take it the suggestion is not accepted. :) =============================================================================== Other comments on things. Curtis Shenton asks: %% I have a quick question for everyone here. Why wouldn't I use the new %% Elric rules from Chaosium and just graft on the magic systems from RQIV %% to play Glorantha? What is it about RQIV that is going to make this a %% better game for Glorantha than Elric? Interesting question. Other than knowing that Elric is a variant of the basic Chaosium rules, I know nothing of it. But what is AH working with here? I doubt AH is going to try and lock-step with Chaosium to have the same system, unless the license they have says they must. Wayne Shaw on mechanics: =============================================================================== %% > I mean, at the rate things are going the basic RQIV book is going %% > to be bigger than the entire line of AD&D garbage! Many people I know %% > refuse to play RQ because they feel that it's an unlearnable and overly- %% > massive system. %% %% Frankly, I don't think we should be hunting for the people who can't %% handle something more sophisticated mechanically than StarWars. Nothing %% I've seen in the playtest drafts to date compares in overall complexity %% to Hero, GURPS or Rolemaster, just to name a few. If we're trying to %% compete by keeping the complexity down where the Palladium people can %% handle it, I think we've lost before we started. The rules in RQ4 are already fairly simple. Mechanic-wise, RQ4 is simpler than many other systems. I'm pretty good at fudging things and making guestimates. But I hate having to reinvent the wheel every time I play. How much light does a candle put out? How far is good human vision with it? How much does a mount eat? How much meat can you get out of an animal, like your mount for instance. It's not the mechanics that stuff a book, it's the world laws. Stuff that I COULD make a quick judgement call on, based on my own personal ideas of physics, biology, and how much I could eat, run or do. But would rather have a set of consistant info on this stuff. %% > I'd like to see a simple and elegant system rather than a system bigger %% > than RQIII. I'm all in favor of RQ Lite myself. And from what I've ehard %% > from people who've spoken to Greg he's in favor of a simpler game than %% > RQIII too. %% %% I'm frankly bemused. In a world that contains GURPS, the Hero System, %% Rolemaster and others, do people really think of RQIII as a "big" system? %% Compared to what? Does everything have to be stripped down to the %% mechanical level of Talislanta? If you thing RQ4 is complex, you should have tried Powers & Perils. It DID try to have info on lots of stuff, down to the supposed magical properties of natural materials (which, BTW, should be looked at for possible use by RQ since P&P is kaput...it was good stuff). -- Burton  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA14226; Mon, 26 Jul 93 21:35:00 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01104; Mon, 26 Jul 93 22:34:20 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 26 Jul 93 22:34:35 EDT From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Re: Rules simplicity Date: Mon, 26 Jul 93 18:47:45 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <58D96D17AD0@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Malcolm Cohen writes: > Well, I am glad to see it back! And I am glad that it has been simplified; t > RQ2 way *was* unnecessarily messy (as well as only affecting training). I agree. I didn't realize how much I had missed the ability to distiguish between easy and hard to learn skills in RQ until I got the RQIV draft and noticed how much easier it made certain things. And as you note, the method of effecting improvement is actually fairly elegant. ------------------------------ shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) or qed!shadow The QED BBS -- (310)420-9327  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA14232; Mon, 26 Jul 93 21:35:05 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01107; Mon, 26 Jul 93 22:34:36 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 26 Jul 93 22:34:38 EDT From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Rules simplicity Date: Mon, 26 Jul 93 18:52:03 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <58D978E77AD@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> davidc@cs.uwa.edu.au (David Cake) writes: > We should keep the core rules small, yes. Combat, as far as I am > concerned, has actually got easier to run in RQ4. The extra rules (like speci > combat options) are not used except when I want them to be, and the rules for > number of combat actions are now much clearer, so tricky questions can be > resolved quicker. I know I can just make a GM call, but often I'd rather make > a considered GM judgement that answers the question once and for all than a > off the cuff judgement. And some rules I just don't use, but I am glad that > they are there. For example the optional movement rules using a hex-grid or > similar are of no use to me currently. When I get around to getting some > figure type thingies (anyone got a good cheap alternative?) and a map sheet > I'll use them, so I'm glad that they're there. Well, from current experience in my playtest campaign, I'd have to say I find no evidence that the current combat is harder or slower to play that earlier editions...perhaps even the opposite. We spend a certain amount of time fumbling around, but that's mostly BECAUSE we are long time RQ people, and have to make sure that we are doing it the RQIV way, or looking up a special case we haven't used often enough to be sure of. But barring that, we seem to be getting fairly smooth with it, and it's only been about three games under RQIV. > I really like the RQ4 character creation rules. They take longer to > explain than RQ3 or RQ2, to create a simple character (a classic beginning PC > However they are much more flexible, not much more complex in practice, and > require a lot less intervention from the GM. I like to run short term campai I'd say they are good in that they eliminate the two flaws of previous editions: the hideous randomness of RQIII, and the cookie cutter tendencies of previous editions previous experience set ups. They also provide the extra benefit that they present good quick and dirty NPC matrices. Wayne ------------------------------ shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) or qed!shadow The QED BBS -- (310)420-9327  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA20637; Tue, 27 Jul 93 04:04:16 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA05830; Tue, 27 Jul 93 05:03:45 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 27 Jul 93 5:03:52 EDT From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: REPLIES Date: Tue, 27 Jul 93 01:36:21 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <594152B0798@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> burt@ptltd.com (Burton Choinski) writes: > %% A bit of History, its a throwback to RQI (sortof), not II. RQI skill > %% modifiers went up in 5% intervals as did skills (if I remember, its been > %% a while). RQII changed it to the percentiles we know and love. > > Okay. my mistake. I first got into RQ at RQIII. Actually, no it isn't. The gentleman you're responding to is wrong. RQ did not start fully utilizing it's percentile system until RQIII. > *smirk* What I meant was that nowdays there are about as many percentile > systems as there are numeric systems, and neither is necessarily better > then the other. Could you define "numeric" as you are using it in this context? I think I disagree, but I want to make sure before I go into it. > > > > In theory, you could just as well run RQ on a d30, if you converted all the > numbers in the rules. There are real reasons why using various dice bases have a profound effect on the game. Even a change such as going from d100 to d20 (which is actually one of the less profound changes you can make in resolution...I could live with a d20 system but would fight to the death against a lot of other resolution changes) tends to increase jerkiness in progression and increase the rate at which a character tops out, because it requires less luck for the last few steps. > > I didn't propose the basic be changed, just that less divisions be used. And I was just pointing out that the fact that the current trend is not toward percentile systems didn't have much to do with whether it was a good idea. Once you get outside of D&D and it's clones, you don't see a lot of D20s either. > > > You misunderstand...I definitlly did not explain that very well. What I mean > was that since the skills when using a d20 is divided by five, you take the > .2, .4 etc fractions as marks. An easy skill would increase (if you made > your roll) by 2d6 marks. Every 5 marks counts as +1 to your actual skill. > So a guy with a skill of 17 and 3 marks gets 1d6 marks added. He now > has, say 7 marks. Well, 5 marks pays for the skill up to 18, leaving 2 > left. You're worried about complexity and you want to add numerical bookkeeping to the experience system? I must be missing the point here. > Overall, I take it the suggestion is not accepted. :) I think the issue really is that enough people feel there are values in a full percentile system that you don't get from a D20 system, and not enough benefit to the latter in terms of saved time and simplicity. > But what is AH working with here? I doubt AH is going to try and lock-step > with Chaosium to have the same system, unless the license they have says > they must. I'd suspect just the opposite; that they would want to differentiate between the two as much as is practical. > > > Wayne Shaw on mechanics: > ============================================================================= > %% > I mean, at the rate things are going the basic RQIV book is going > %% > to be bigger than the entire line of AD&D garbage! Many people I know > %% > refuse to play RQ because they feel that it's an unlearnable and overly- > %% > massive system. > %% > %% Frankly, I don't think we should be hunting for the people who can't > %% handle something more sophisticated mechanically than StarWars. Nothing > %% I've seen in the playtest drafts to date compares in overall complexity > %% to Hero, GURPS or Rolemaster, just to name a few. If we're trying to > %% compete by keeping the complexity down where the Palladium people can > %% handle it, I think we've lost before we started. > > The rules in RQ4 are already fairly simple. Mechanic-wise, RQ4 is simpler > than many other systems. > > I'm pretty good at fudging things and making guestimates. But I hate having > to reinvent the wheel every time I play. How much light does a candle put > out? How far is good human vision with it? How much does a mount eat? > How much meat can you get out of an animal, like your mount for instance. > > It's not the mechanics that stuff a book, it's the world laws. Stuff that > I COULD make a quick judgement call on, based on my own personal ideas of > physics, biology, and how much I could eat, run or do. > But would rather have a set of consistant info on this stuff. > > %% > I'd like to see a simple and elegant system rather than a system bigger > %% > than RQIII. I'm all in favor of RQ Lite myself. And from what I've ehard > %% > from people who've spoken to Greg he's in favor of a simpler game than > %% > RQIII too. > %% > %% I'm frankly bemused. In a world that contains GURPS, the Hero System, > %% Rolemaster and others, do people really think of RQIII as a "big" system? > %% Compared to what? Does everything have to be stripped down to the > %% mechanical level of Talislanta? > > If you thing RQ4 is complex, you should have tried Powers & Perils. It DID > try to have info on lots of stuff, down to the supposed magical properties > of natural materials (which, BTW, should be looked at for possible use by > RQ since P&P is kaput...it was good stuff). > > -- Burton > > ------------------------------ shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) or qed!shadow The QED BBS -- (310)420-9327  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA20643; Tue, 27 Jul 93 04:04:20 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA05833; Tue, 27 Jul 93 05:03:52 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 27 Jul 93 5:03:55 EDT From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: REPLIES Date: Tue, 27 Jul 93 01:53:28 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <594153311C1@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Sorry about the previous message...accidentally sent it out before I was done editing and replying. > > I COULD make a quick judgement call on, based on my own personal ideas of > physics, biology, and how much I could eat, run or do. > But would rather have a set of consistant info on this stuff. But I think that stuff is intimately tied up in mechanics. I not only need to know what a mount eats in a day: I need to know what happens if you have to put him on half-rations for a few days. Oh, not in great detail, but I need SOME basis to extrapolate from. But I think we're in substantial agreement here. > > > If you thing RQ4 is complex, you should have tried Powers & Perils. It DID > try to have info on lots of stuff, down to the supposed magical properties > of natural materials (which, BTW, should be looked at for possible use by > RQ since P&P is kaput...it was good stuff). Actually, if you look, I was arguing with someone that RQ4 WASN'T complex, at least compared to some other popular games on the market. And actually, I own Powers and Perils; even started to run it once. It showed how NOT to do a sophisticated system: make everything a special case, instead of coming up with sound core mechanics and showing how to use them in various ways. But it did have interesting features, including some useful mechanical concepts such as the "food point" idea. Wayne ------------------------------ shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) or qed!shadow The QED BBS -- (310)420-9327  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA23462; Tue, 27 Jul 93 07:19:16 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA11241; Tue, 27 Jul 93 08:18:41 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 27 Jul 93 8:18:49 EDT From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Re: Rules simplicity Date: Tue, 27 Jul 93 04:32:34 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <597550B2639@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) writes: > > My GM* (who goes back to RQ I, though I only started with III) doesn't > want to implement the easy/medium/hard skills because he thinks it will > imbalance character progression in the cults we have. A character with > I like the new skill difficulties personally, but I think my GM has > valid worries. > I think he's being overly nervous. While skills will tend to get to the flattening out point faster with easy skills than hard, it isn't any easier to roll above 75% with an easy skill than a hard one. I would expect that the differences in difficulty will tend to close up quite a bit as you go up in them. Which doesn't, of course, mean there will be no difference; I just can't see how it will be enough to worry about. ------------------------------ shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) or qed!shadow The QED BBS -- (310)420-9327  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA27808; Tue, 27 Jul 93 09:54:25 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA17026; Tue, 27 Jul 93 10:53:48 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 27 Jul 93 10:54:00 EDT From: burt@ptltd.com (Burton Choinski) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: REPLIES Date: Tue, 27 Jul 93 10:50:04 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <599EAC46873@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Wayne Shaw notes: =============================================================================== %% davidc@cs.uwa.edu.au (David Cake) writes: %% %% > For example the optional movement rules using a hex-grid or %% > similar are of no use to me currently. When I get around to getting some %% > figure type thingies (anyone got a good cheap alternative?) and a map %% > sheet I'll use them, so I'm glad that they're there. Actually, what's scary is that I have recently been using my old Traveller stuff to do combat! My ref screen is my old, beat, green Judges Guild Traveller screen, which I just use as a note/dice shield (and paperclip typed tables up to). Anyways, one session I decided to use a "range band" type system. And it worked. And the encounter range determination also was very good. So, rather then maintain a hex sheet, I just keep track of a linear distance. EXAMPLE: the group is travelling along the road and encounters a band of broos at 50m. First turn, the broos triple-time it towards them by 12m, to 38. The sorcerer decides to give himself some more time and backs off his mount by 10m, to -10. Next turn the broos run again, to 16. Group fires arrows and spells. Broos run again to 4. Group pulls out hand weapons. Broo line hits line of characters holding at 0, one makes his maneuver roll and may penetrate to go after the sorcerer. The positions may flux back or forth, depending on how much of a running battle it is (negative if the players are running, positive if they are chasing. I consider forward to be "positive). Given this "battle line" idea, Maneuver is useful. If 5 enemies rush 4 defenders, the best you could hope for is to stop 4 of them, assuming the defenders out maneuver the attackers. %% Well, from current experience in my playtest campaign, I'd have to say I %% find no evidence that the current combat is harder or slower to play that %% earlier editions...perhaps even the opposite. We spend a certain amount %% of time fumbling around, but that's mostly BECAUSE we are long time RQ %% people, and have to make sure that we are doing it the RQIV way, or %% looking up a special case we haven't used often enough to be sure of. That's how we seem to be. He have been trying to use the varying special damage based on location, but haven't gotten it all memorized yet, so it is slower. Actually, we have been using a d6+SR for combat order (d6+MeleeSR+WeapSR when closing with the target, d6+DexSR+WeapSR when engaged) and it seems to do pretty good. It's relatively painless, and no where near as "certain" as just using straight SR values. %% > I really like the RQ4 character creation rules. They take longer to %% > explain than RQ3 or RQ2, to create a simple character (a classic %% > beginning PC However they are much more flexible, not much more complex %% > in practice, and require a lot less intervention from the GM. %% I'd say they are good in that they eliminate the two flaws of previous %% editions: the hideous randomness of RQIII, and the cookie cutter %% tendencies of previous editions previous experience set ups. They also %% provide the extra benefit that they present good quick and dirty NPC %% matrices. The new generation is the major reason why the players like RQ now. They don't have to have Joe the generic warrior. Oh, I have been running my playtests with characters starting out at "Expert" levels (64 BP's to work with). What levels is everyone else workign with? %% > Burton Choinski: %% > *smirk* What I meant was that nowdays there are about as many percentile %% > systems as there are numeric systems, and neither is necessarily better %% > then the other. %% %% Could you define "numeric" as you are using it in this context? I think %% I disagree, but I want to make sure before I go into it. Sorry, I couldn't think of a better single-word term. I mean systems that rely on unit numbers for skill rolls, rather then percentages. Examples are Torg (where the better number wins), Mekton, Traveller: TNE, etc. %% > has, say 7 marks. Well, 5 marks pays for the skill up to 18, leaving 2 %% > left. %% %% You're worried about complexity and you want to add numerical bookkeeping %% to the experience system? I must be missing the point here. Yea, it does sound silly. I like the difficulties, and did not want to loose them. %% > I COULD make a quick judgement call on, based on my own personal ideas of %% > physics, biology, and how much I could eat, run or do. %% > But would rather have a set of consistant info on this stuff. %% %% But I think that stuff is intimately tied up in mechanics. I not only %% need to know what a mount eats in a day: I need to know what happens if %% you have to put him on half-rations for a few days. Oh, not in great %% detail, but I need SOME basis to extrapolate from. %% But I think we're in substantial agreement here. Yes, that's the stuff I was talking about needing. I don't need a Doctor's tome of knowledge, just enough data points to guestimate with better accuracy then I have to now. %% > If you thing RQ4 is complex, you should have tried Powers & Perils. It %% > DID try to have info on lots of stuff, down to the supposed magical %% > properties of natural materials (which, BTW, should be looked at for %% > possible use by RQ since P&P is kaput...it was good stuff). %% %% Actually, if you look, I was arguing with someone that RQ4 WASN'T %% complex, at least compared to some other popular games on the market. Oh, I know...I have a terrible tendancy to not put the proper response names. That comment wasn't to you, it was to someone else who was worried about too much complexity. %% And actually, I own Powers and Perils; even started to run it once. It %% showed how NOT to do a sophisticated system: make everything a special %% case, instead of coming up with sound core mechanics and showing how to %% use them in various ways. But it did have interesting features, %% including some useful mechanical concepts such as the "food point" idea. We ran it quite a bit for a long time. There were some ideas in it that were very good, such as the Influence chance and food point ideas. Is there any reason why the better ideas/info from P&P could not be raided and RQ-ized since P&P is dead? Hey, I'd even be willing to try and filter out the gems, If OJ and co. want. :) -- Burton  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA13932; Tue, 27 Jul 93 15:27:24 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01549; Tue, 27 Jul 93 16:26:54 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 27 Jul 93 16:27:00 EDT From: curtiss@netcom.com (Curtis Shenton) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: REPLIES Date: Tue, 27 Jul 93 13:27:23 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <59F783D00DC@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> > done editing and replying. > > > > I COULD make a quick judgement call on, based on my own personal ideas of > > physics, biology, and how much I could eat, run or do. > > But would rather have a set of consistant info on this stuff. > > But I think that stuff is intimately tied up in mechanics. I not only > need to know what a mount eats in a day: I need to know what happens if > you have to put him on half-rations for a few days. Oh, not in great > detail, but I need SOME basis to extrapolate from. > But I think we're in substantial agreement here. I'm not so sure every game system needs to have food point rules for horses. :) I can just use common sense once I know just a little bit( a magazine article perhaps) about horses. I don't need this in a core ruels set. This is of course just my personal preference. > Wayne > > ------------------------------ > shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) or qed!shadow > The QED BBS -- (310)420-9327 > -- Curtis Shenton curtiss@netcom.com internet & 4@3091 WWIVnet Currently designing a fantasy setting for WotC. If you are interested in baroque steampunk technology in a fantasy setting and want to playtest email me and I'll give you the info on joining the mailing list.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA19834; Tue, 27 Jul 93 02:35:25 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA05006; Tue, 27 Jul 93 03:34:57 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 27 Jul 93 3:34:50 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Rules simplicity Date: Tue, 27 Jul 93 17:34:01 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <592996829CA@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> > > RQ3 training was really the pits; complicated, youngish characters were too > weak, most characters came out with boring skill lists and insufficiently > specialised. Absolutely agreed: I don't know anyone who has used the base RQIII character generation rules unmodified. > > > BTW, why is that people complain about the Esasy/Medium/Hard skills, > > but none of the RQ2 supporters have yet mentioned that they are glad to see it > > back? This system existed pretty much in RQ2 for training, it was just > > explained very badly. > > Well, I am glad to see it back! And I am glad that it has been simplified; the > RQ2 way *was* unnecessarily messy (as well as only affecting training). > > -- > ...........................Malcolm Cohen, NAG Ltd., Oxford, U.K. > (malcolm@nag.co.uk) > My GM* (who goes back to RQ I, though I only started with III) doesn't want to implement the easy/medium/hard skills because he thinks it will imbalance character progression in the cults we have. A character with 2-H spear as a cultural weapon will get to 90% skill level very rapidly, and thus gets a big advantage in combat and rune level advancement over someone who doesn't get easy skills in his culture/cult. Has anyone found this to be a problem with the RQ IV rules in a long-term campaign setting? Are there any plans to implement changes to requirements for rune level in RQIV ie 110% easy = 90% medium = 70% hard for skill levels. I like the new skill difficulties personally, but I think my GM has valid worries. Graeme Lindsell a.k.a gal502@huxley.anu.edu.au *PS This isn't really relevant for this list, but my GM (Gary James) claims that many of the characters encountered in Jaxarte's Journals were originally PCs in his old Prax campaign in Melbourne. Can MOB confirm or deny?  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA20181; Tue, 27 Jul 93 03:11:50 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA05006; Tue, 27 Jul 93 03:34:57 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 27 Jul 93 3:34:50 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Rules simplicity Date: Tue, 27 Jul 93 17:34:01 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <592996829CA@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> > > RQ3 training was really the pits; complicated, youngish characters were too > weak, most characters came out with boring skill lists and insufficiently > specialised. Absolutely agreed: I don't know anyone who has used the base RQIII character generation rules unmodified. > > > BTW, why is that people complain about the Esasy/Medium/Hard skills, > > but none of the RQ2 supporters have yet mentioned that they are glad to see it > > back? This system existed pretty much in RQ2 for training, it was just > > explained very badly. > > Well, I am glad to see it back! And I am glad that it has been simplified; the > RQ2 way *was* unnecessarily messy (as well as only affecting training). > > -- > ...........................Malcolm Cohen, NAG Ltd., Oxford, U.K. > (malcolm@nag.co.uk) > My GM* (who goes back to RQ I, though I only started with III) doesn't want to implement the easy/medium/hard skills because he thinks it will imbalance character progression in the cults we have. A character with 2-H spear as a cultural weapon will get to 90% skill level very rapidly, and thus gets a big advantage in combat and rune level advancement over someone who doesn't get easy skills in his culture/cult. Has anyone found this to be a problem with the RQ IV rules in a long-term campaign setting? Are there any plans to implement changes to requirements for rune level in RQIV ie 110% easy = 90% medium = 70% hard for skill levels. I like the new skill difficulties personally, but I think my GM has valid worries. Graeme Lindsell a.k.a gal502@huxley.anu.edu.au *PS This isn't really relevant for this list, but my GM (Gary James) claims that many of the characters encountered in Jaxarte's Journals were originally PCs in his old Prax campaign in Melbourne. Can MOB confirm or deny?  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA23468; Tue, 27 Jul 93 19:09:11 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA08755; Tue, 27 Jul 93 20:08:23 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 27 Jul 93 20:08:36 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Re: Rules simplicity Date: Wed, 28 Jul 93 10:07:27 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <5A3289C36BC@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Wayne Shaw writes: > I think he's being overly nervous. While skills will tend to get to the > flattening out point faster with easy skills than hard, it isn't any > easier to roll above 75% with an easy skill than a hard one. I would > expect that the differences in difficulty will tend to close up quite a > bit as you go up in them. I think the opposite will happen. In the extreme limit (skills over 100% with a positive modifier) the rate of increase of an easy skill will be twice that of medium skill. For skills at less than 100%, obviously there is a tradeoff because the 2d6 increase roll will reduce the chance of an increase by more than the 1d6 roll, but of course the increased skill gives the higher chance of getting a tick. My attitude is that we are the playtesters so we should find out if there is a problem, but my GM doesn't want to change a running campaign. He is especially worried by the new training rules: the rate of increase of an easy skill is over 4 times (7 vs 1.5) the rate for a RQ III skill. 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 AA13905; Wed, 14 Jul 93 03:18:33 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA03612; Wed, 14 Jul 93 04:17:48 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 14 Jul 93 4:17:17 EDT From: davidc@cs.uwa.edu.au (David Cake) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Thoughts on Magic Date: Wed, 14 Jul 93 16:16:50 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <45B46847F9C@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Personally I think of Divine magic sacrifice as being a complicated ritual, where in exchange for Power, the god grants you a use of some of his abilities. I think of it more like having a A D&D Contingency spell cast on you than actually learning the spell, the spell is cast at the time of sacrifice and lies dormant in the spirit plane until invoked. This is why Vampires and Thanatari can steal it, and why the gods do not actually prevent the use of their Rune magic for inappropriate purposes (eg Gbaji). Priests have a more intimate relation, and so rather than a simple swap, they can maintain a conduit for power between them and their god, through which they can ask for more power through prayer. Think of Divine magic as very minor HeroQuest abilities, gained through rituals of re-eneactment of the deities powers and deeds. In any case I most definately think that it should not be changed, we are stuck with the present system. Compatibility with RQ3 should be something that we should maximise for all those parts that seem to get few complaints. (I'm actually against the Damage modifier changes for those reasons). Cheers Dave Cake  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA24744; Wed, 28 Jul 93 15:01:59 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA11436; Wed, 28 Jul 93 16:00:05 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 28 Jul 93 16:01:27 EDT From: gharris@Jade.Tufts.EDU To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" <> Subject: Learning New Skills Date: Wed, 28 Jul 93 15:58:50 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <5B705D50C91@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Currently, the mechanic for learning a new skill is as follows: you spend a period of time being taught the skill (one week for easy skills, two weeks for medium skills, four weeks for hard skills, and eight weeks for very hard skills). At the end of that time, you gain a d6 in the skill, and your ability in the skill is then 1d6 plus your skill category modifier. I would propose changing this mechanic to the following: when you learn a new skill you spend two weeks being taught. At the end of this period, you gain the equivalent of one experience roll in the skill, that is, 2d6 or 7 for an easy skill, 1d6 or 2+1d2 for a medium skill, 1d3 or 2 for a hard skill, and 1 for a very hard skill. The advantage I see to this method is that we are using the same mechanic for learning new skills, training skills and learning from experience. Having a more consistent mechanic makes the system more streamlined and elegant. Since the expected gain in skill per week is nearly the same in both cases, there aren't any real balance problems either. So, comments, questions, suggestions? -- 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 AA02865; Wed, 28 Jul 93 17:48:49 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA16728; Wed, 28 Jul 93 18:48:19 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 28 Jul 93 18:48:22 EDT From: JOVANOVIC@CUCCFA.CCC.COLUMBIA.EDU To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: RE: Learning New Skills Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1993 18:47:28 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <5B9D4806866@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> I think I posted a simplified variant (which used 1 day of training per 10% of skill) that worked along these lines. It seems like a reasonable approach to me. I think the experience and training systems should use a consistant approach - either vary the gain (1d3, 1d6 or 2d6) or vary the time/number of skill checks needed to increase the skill Oliver  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA06995; Wed, 28 Jul 93 20:07:25 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA19257; Wed, 28 Jul 93 21:06:33 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 28 Jul 93 21:06:40 EDT From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: REPLIES Date: Wed, 28 Jul 93 14:51:54 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <5BC21C21C01@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> burt@ptltd.com (Burton Choinski) writes: > > Oh, I have been running my playtests with characters starting out at "Expert" > levels (64 BP's to work with). What levels is everyone else workign with? I run the regular playtests at Average, since it's actually a campaign. I did run one one-off game at Expert, though. > > Sorry, I couldn't think of a better single-word term. I mean systems that > rely on unit numbers for skill rolls, rather then percentages. Examples are > Torg (where the better number wins), Mekton, Traveller: TNE, etc. Okay, in which case I was right: I don't agree that these work as well as percentages. Almost all those systems weigh the value of stats in WAY too high as far as I'm concerned. They are also generally overly coarse. Wayne ------------------------------ shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) or qed!shadow The QED BBS -- (310)420-9327  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA06998; Wed, 28 Jul 93 20:07:26 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA19271; Wed, 28 Jul 93 21:06:55 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 28 Jul 93 21:06:58 EDT From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Re: REPLIES Date: Wed, 28 Jul 93 15:03:55 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <5BC23366B29@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> curtiss@netcom.netcom.com (Curtis Shenton) writes: > I'm not so sure every game system needs to have food point rules for > horses. :) I can just use common sense once I know just a little bit( > a magazine article perhaps) about horses. I don't need this in a core > ruels set. This is of course just my personal preference. Well, different strokes, as they say. But my preference is for a bit more mechanical vigor in how rules handle certain issues. I've found it makes my job easier, and avoids certain sorts of competing-experts arguments. > ------------------------------ shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) or qed!shadow The QED BBS -- (310)420-9327  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA07008; Wed, 28 Jul 93 20:07:31 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA19278; Wed, 28 Jul 93 21:06:59 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 28 Jul 93 21:07:01 EDT From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Re: Re: Rules simplicity Date: Wed, 28 Jul 93 15:06:22 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <5BC233D0905@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) writes: > I think the opposite will happen. In the extreme limit (skills over 100% > with a positive modifier) the rate of increase of an easy skill will be > twice that of medium skill. For skills at less than 100%, obviously there > is a tradeoff because the 2d6 increase roll will reduce the chance of > an increase by more than the 1d6 roll, but of course the increased skill > gives the higher chance of getting a tick. You have a good point: I had not considered the result with the over 100%. It doesn't really worry me much, as the simple chance of improving at all is so low at that point, but I can see how it would some others. Of course, not using a game environment with anything resembling the rune lord concept colors my perceptions here. > campaign. He is especially worried by the new training rules: the rate > of increase of an easy skill is over 4 times (7 vs 1.5) the rate for > a RQ III skill. I'm not sure that's a bug. I always felt that RQIII training might be overly conservative. But we'll see. Wayne ------------------------------ shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) or qed!shadow The QED BBS -- (310)420-9327  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA11651; Wed, 28 Jul 93 23:22:56 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA22223; Thu, 29 Jul 93 00:22:03 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 29 Jul 93 0:22:07 EDT From: "Roderick Robertson, SC1-5, x52936" To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: My how time flies Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1993 20:53 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <5BF64804771@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> shadow@qedbbs.COM (Wayne Shaw) writes: >burt@ptltd.com (Burton Choinski) writes: >> %% A bit of History, its a throwback to RQI (sortof), not II. RQI skill >> %% modifiers went up in 5% intervals as did skills (if I remember, its been >> %% a while). RQII changed it to the percentiles we know and love. >> >> Okay. my mistake. I first got into RQ at RQIII. >Actually, no it isn't. The gentleman you're responding to is wrong. RQ >did not start fully utilizing it's percentile system until RQIII. I am the gentleman Wayne is referring to here, and boy, I was all ready to flame Wayne for not knowing his (RQ) History, then I decided to make a little check against the 2nd Ed. My apologies to Burton and anyone else who I may have misled with my statement up there, I am wrong. RQ2 *was* 5% based (I really thought it had changed between 1 & 2). You'd think that after 10 years I could remember a thing like that... Roderick Robertson  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA26136; Thu, 29 Jul 93 08:32:30 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA03432; Thu, 29 Jul 93 09:31:54 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 29 Jul 93 9:32:03 EDT From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: My how time flies Date: Thu, 29 Jul 93 02:44:17 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <5C88E303E69@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> "Roderick Robertson, SC1-5, x52936" writes: > >Actually, no it isn't. The gentleman you're responding to is wrong. RQ > >did not start fully utilizing it's percentile system until RQIII. > > I am the gentleman Wayne is referring to here, and boy, I was all > ready to flame Wayne for not knowing his (RQ) History, then I decided to > make a little check against the 2nd Ed. Yep. Wasn't one I was liable to forget because it was one of the thing I thought was a step forward in RQIII. It's kind of silly to use a percentile system and then use nothing but 5% steps. And I wasn't likely to forget; I've been with RQ since the day it rolled out the door (actually, a hair before). > My apologies to Burton and anyone else who I may have misled with my > statement up there, I am wrong. RQ2 *was* 5% based (I really thought it > had changed between 1 & 2). You'd think that after 10 years I could > remember a thing like that... > Don't feel too bad. I've done similar things (especially between RQI and II, where a lot of the changes were fairly subtle). I won't even talk about the rules I've gotten goofed up between various editions of the Hero System... Wayne ------------------------------ shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) or qed!shadow The QED BBS -- (310)420-9327  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA06491; Tue, 27 Jul 93 12:51:51 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA24638; Tue, 27 Jul 93 13:51:20 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 27 Jul 93 13:51:27 EDT From: jjm@zycor.lgc.com (johnjmedway) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: COMMENTS: Background and Training Date: Tue, 27 Jul 93 12:51:07 CDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <59CE0510CFE@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> RQ3 Training was cumbersome, if working with more than one iteration of potential increase. The RQ3 background skills system was simplicity itself, and that showed in more of the bad ways than the good ones ( cookie-cutter- ness, predictability, et al ). As for the current training system: much better. I am also very glad to see difficulty levels reintroduced. I had done that to RQ3, anyway. I am not so keen on the background system. I'll admit that it gives real- istic, rounded characters, with reasonable specialization(s), but it just takes too damn long. I don't consider myself "mathematically challenged", and I've always been in the fast reading group, but I want to see the sup- posed streamlined and improved system ( please, oliver... ). If that's also too unweildy, I'll work on that smaller/more numerous package system that I'd mentioned previously. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notable Omission from Draft 2.0: Why is 'Ride' not an optional skill for Herder? Um, what about EVERYONE in Prax? 8) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Graeme?: >> setting? Are there any plans to implement changes to requirements for >> rune level in RQIV ie 110% easy = 90% medium = 70% hard for skill levels. I've always though the flat 90% requirement was pretty artificial, but if that form of requirement is to be maintained, it should be rethought on a cult by cult basis. The end result may not be far from your suggestion, but difficulty of skill shouldn't be the driving force. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the person who asked about character levels, I've done 4 for my current campaign ( Lunar exiles heading to Prax to take over the domain north of Duke Raus': Solthip Vash, Priest of Yelm, Lunar Army General, "retired". 70-80 points of noble, initiate, foot warrior, official Balaal din Suuma, Initiate of Irripi Ontor, inactive, Staff Officer of an Imperial Logistics Corp., "retired", Initiate of Danfive Xar- on ( related to the "retirement" ) 60-70 points of noble, initiate, foot warrior, official _____, Initiate of Yelorna, daughter of a rich Tarshite Merchant, ex- Lunar Cavalry officer ( though not "retired" ), now Captain of Cav- alry for General Vash ~60 points of noble, merchant, initiate, mounted warrior _____, Shaman-Priestess of the Sable Nation of the Hungry Plateau, daughter of a local priestess and an Irripi Ontor priest, gone nat- ive, now staff veternarian for Gen. Vash, and his new Sable Troop ~60 points of herder, healer, shaman, initiate --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 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 AA01788; Wed, 28 Jul 93 01:33:48 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA15191; Wed, 28 Jul 93 02:31:58 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 28 Jul 93 2:33:22 EDT From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Re: Re: Rules simplicity Date: Tue, 27 Jul 93 22:59:39 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <5A98D8B7F30@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Someone sent me a message with the offhand comment that the RQIV project was being "shelved". Anybody know anything more about this? ------------------------------ shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) or qed!shadow The QED BBS -- (310)420-9327  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA16697; Fri, 30 Jul 93 04:19:28 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA04348; Fri, 30 Jul 93 05:11:01 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 30 Jul 93 5:19:02 EDT From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Running Skill and Sprinting Date: Fri, 30 Jul 93 00:37:45 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <5DC36934972@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Recently while we were running a combat, someone asked me what the Running Skill was for, shouldn't it allow you to get a little more speed out of movement or some such? I looked it up and it acknowledge that there was probably going to be such a thing at some point in the process, but currently all it did was function like March or Riding to reduce fatigue during sprints. The problem is, I can find no place in the rules that defined a sprint. Further, while we were having this discussion, someone figured out that the best speed you can manage in RQIV was, well, a little slow. A human, by taking a Triple Move as his action choice can get up to 18 meters around (9 in each movement phase). With the new round length (six seconds), this comes out to three meters a second or a bit under 11 kph. Urrr...this is a bit slow, probably even for somewhat encumbered people. It's not necessarily slow for manuevering speed, but for dead out running, it seemed a bit much. So I came up with the following: After one round of Triple Move, a character can elect to SPRINT. Sprinting allows a character to move at double his normal maximum move by using up all his actions. It also presumes that if anything goes wrong with his footing (gopher hole, falling through covered ice, whatever) he's probably going to fall downn (barring a Running roll or DEX*3%), and he needs to chech for Fatigue loss each round rather than each five (Running Skill helps here). Further, he has to decellerate for a round at Triple Move speed; if he needs to stop sooner than that, he has to make a Running roll or pile into the object. Currently I haven't dealt with the issue of changing direction or the like. Comments, criticism, suggestions? On a related note, are four footed creatures still supposed to get a break on encumberance or not? Some of the reference in the rules seems somewhat contradictory, and it seems next to impossible for a horse or centaur to wear any armor at all, otherwise. Wayne ------------------------------ shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) or qed!shadow The QED BBS -- (310)420-9327  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA26997; Sat, 31 Jul 93 11:45:30 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA17034; Sat, 31 Jul 93 12:44:45 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 31 Jul 93 12:45:01 EDT From: Anthony Ragan To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Rumors, rumors Date: Sat, 31 Jul 93 09:44 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <5FBC6E95498@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Now that Ken is apparently no longer the Rune Czar (or is this just a rumor too?), the Net.Rumor.Mill has started grinding-out stuff saying the RQ4 project is dead/not-quite-but-crippled/shelved for the near future. I thought this would be the best place to come for ruth. :) So...what's going on? --Anthony Rune Chia Pet of Ernalda