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 AA03549; Wed, 1 Sep 93 00:36:40 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01631; Wed, 1 Sep 93 01:35:41 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 1 Sep 93 1:35:56 EDT From: Dustin Tranberg To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Long Fights Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1993 22:35:20 -0700 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <8F0B8FA2433@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Some have complained about fights, esp. between high-level characters, taking too long. Two features might help this. First, reinstating the RQ2 practice of subtracting attack over 100% from parries and dodges. Second, the special success options suggested elsewhere, in particular the FEINT, which does nothing on a normal success, but on a special success negates the opponent's next defense. Two fighters circling each other feinting, waiting for their opponent to drop the guard, are performing the classic "searching for an opening." Someone will lose their parry to a feint long before they would ever fail it themselves. (Remember, these are highly-skilled characters.) This is also the kind of maneuver that low-skill characters are very unlikely to try, as it just won't be worth it to them - they'd just swing. Just my 2 front teeth, Dustin  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA03935; Wed, 1 Sep 93 00:54:47 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01848; Wed, 1 Sep 93 01:53:59 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 1 Sep 93 1:54:03 EDT From: Dustin Tranberg To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Tension Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1993 22:53:28 -0700 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <8F10710016A@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> People express dismay with things like fatigue and bleeding, but I find that they introduce a wonderful amount of TENSION into a game. Especially bleeding. Bleeding is wonderful! There's nothing like having to rush under the sword of the enemy to try to keep a friend from having his/her life leak all over the floor, of knowing that someone who was knocked out in mid-combat might be dead by the time it's over, and isn't just lying in stasis on the floor. It forces you to make TOUGH choices. "Do I fight, or do I keep my meal ticket alive?" Same with fatigue, RQ3 style. "Do I fight, or do I take a breather?" Some of the most fun moments I've had in RQ have been when my GM and I thought that Endurance was a *temporal* spell, and the endurance points would run out on me at the most horrible times. I think maybe RQ3 fatigue isn't so much hard to keep track of, as it is that peiople just aren't used to doing it. OK, rant's over with, Dustin  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA04365; Wed, 1 Sep 93 01:11:40 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA02276; Wed, 1 Sep 93 02:10:52 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 1 Sep 93 2:10:55 EDT From: Dustin Tranberg To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Maneuver Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1993 23:10:34 -0700 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <8F14ED12182@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> OK, a quick and dirty compromise for Maneuver. How about characters get the CHOICE of 1) DEXx5 or 2) Weapon skill for any Maneuver-type roll. At least it's simple, Dustin  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA05491; Wed, 1 Sep 93 02:35:58 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA03624; Wed, 1 Sep 93 03:35:11 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 1 Sep 93 3:35:14 EDT From: davidc@cs.uwa.edu.au (David Cake) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: that ol' RQ Lite thingy again Date: Wed, 1 Sep 93 15:34:09 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <8F2B6F75745@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > > %% I don't think that you can do justice to divine magic in a Lite rules > %% set. Just look at the RQ3 Magic book to see a really weak explanation > %% of divine magic. > > Hmmm. Well, I think if we are pushing for RQlite to be more Glorantha > based, i.e. back to it's roots, then an updated GoG with notes on divine > magic should be made. I don't know how AH has it's book data. If in > computer someplace it may be relatively painless to crank it out quickly. > The Lite rules are allowed to have a weak explanation of Divine magic, they will already have a pretty weak explanation of spirit magic, fairly weak skills rules, fairly weak combat rules. The point is that they should have enough in the RQ Lite rules for you to pick up a module for RQ Normal (or should that be RQ Hevy?) and play it straight away. I think that knowing what Divine magic is and the basics of how it works (if not every obscure spell) is essential. To set up RQ Lite otherwise is a very bad publishing move - you now have two (very similar) games to support, one that only 'newbies' play, so no one wants to write for it. RQ Lite will only work if it is compatible with supplements. Otherwise it is only useful for demo games and introducing your kid sister to RQ, and becomes rather a white elephant. RQ Lite might involve reprinting parts of GoG, and it might not. It certainly should involve divine magic, in a weak form if it must be. I still don't know what all the fuss is about, people have got so excited about the RQ Lite idea, I have no objection, but the RQ Lite rules seem like a fairly small part of the overall RQ4 effort. My only concern is that many of the RQ Lite proposals look strongly like recipes for publishing disaster to me, propelled by a sort of fervour about RQ Lite that the more we can remove from it and still have it playable the better. It has to not only be playable, but recognisably RQ as well, and with sufficent rules to run a simple Glorantha based adventure. Otherwise what is the point? Cheers Dave Cake  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA06830; Wed, 1 Sep 93 04:07:08 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA04632; Wed, 1 Sep 93 05:06:18 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 1 Sep 93 5:06:21 EDT From: davidc@cs.uwa.edu.au (David Cake) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: that ol' RQ Lite thingy again Date: Wed, 1 Sep 93 17:05:24 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <8F43BE322A8@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > > > rules, fairly weak combat rules. The point is that they should have enough in > > the RQ Lite rules for you to pick up a module for RQ Normal (or should that > > be RQ Hevy?) and play it straight away. I think that knowing what Divine > magic > > is and the basics of how it works (if not every obscure spell) is essential. > > Wasn't this the idea behind the RQ Basic set, which resulted in 4 pages > at the start of each package about how to use it with RQ Basic? The Basic Set (I thought it was 'Standard Edition', but who cares what it was called, it was a waste of time) was perhaps an attempt at something similar to RQ Lite, and a bad one. That is why I am so wary of RQ Lite in general. I do think that RQ4 is possible if done carefully however. I think that the things that should be left out are simply those things that do not come up often in the middle of an adventure, or that only come up if you have the appropriate sort of character. I think that means that we can leave out enchanting, summoning, virtually all other ritual magic (well, except Warding), most of shamanism (its mostly only important if your character is a shaman), how to create familiars. But I sympathise with you exactly - RQ Lite must not require rubbish at the beginning of every module like the Standard set did. If a RQ Lite design does require this sort of stuff, then to me that is admitting that the RQ Lite idea is not practical for Glorantha. > > I don't think "less complex" = "weak" as you seem to. To me, the most > important things about RQ Lite rules are that the be a) short and b) produce > similar results to the full RQ4 rules. It's no good producing a system > that when used is much more lethal tha the full combat rules. I actually used the term "weak" in a depiberately vague way, and certainly did not mean to implay that combat would be less dangerous (or more). I actually think that RQ rules should be less complex, and also less complete, in that parts of the gane system that are only relevent to particular specialised characters would be removed. > > > To set up RQ Lite otherwise is a very bad publishing move - you now > > have two (very similar) games to support, one that only 'newbies' play, so > >no one wants to write for it. RQ Lite will only work if it is compatible with > > supplements. > > Which means that the RQ Lite rules have to be slim enough that stats for > RQ Lite characters can be included in a module without taking up to I think that this could almost not be necesary with a well designed RQ Lite, just ignore the spells that mean little to you (like Enchanting spells, and Bless Crops), and you do not need the hit location chart, just use the HP total, maybe one or two lines of simply calculated stats. > much space. The comment "no-one wants to write for" seemed to be what > happened to RQ Basic set: there was never a single publication that > only needed the rules in the basic set. I don't know why: a basic set > module would have been very easily adapted by a deluxe set GM, and a > good plot would work in both systems. Partly it was a vicious circle, no one owned it, so no one wrote for it, so no one bought it. I think just everyone who played RQ bought the Deluxe set, and ignored the standard. I don't think that if something had been written for the Standard rules that anyone would have cared. I would find designing for the Standard rules very irritating, as I would find the restrictions of spells simply annoying. > > > RQ Lite might involve reprinting parts of GoG, and it might not. It > > certainly should involve divine magic, in a weak form if it must be. > > What I think it has to contain is some cults. Cults show a new player > how people behave in the world, instead of acting like "generic fighter". > Whether you can include cults without divine magic is the question. If > you don't include priests I think you can, since initiates almost > never use divine magic anyway I think that RQ Lite without cults is so non-Gloranthan as to be not worth the trouble (but people like Loren have very different publishing ideas in mind than I do). I think that cults without Divine magic will seem very odd (not to mention pointless). > > {bits deleted} > > > that many of the RQ Lite proposals look strongly like recipes for publishing > > disaster to me, propelled by a sort of fervour about RQ Lite that the more > > we can remove from it and still have it playable the better. It has to not > only > > be playable, but recognisably RQ as well, and with sufficent rules to run a > > simple Glorantha based adventure. Otherwise what is the point? > > > The fervour is from fanatics who want to resurrect a dead RPG. That's > the point. It doesn't seem like the "RQ Renaissance" has done anything > except sell a few more products to converts. The other discussion > (which has been folded into the RQ Lite debate) concerns simpler combat > systems, which is mainly what I post about I don't think RQ is anything like dead, its just not that healthy. While RQ is not selling by the ton, its not the worst selling game either. And up until about a month ago, the 'RQ Renaissance' was one new product, and one product of reprints/updates with a long (and only average quality) scenario added in. Lets see how Dorastor etc. sells, and see if general gaming community interest can be rekindled. AH are just not actively recruiting for the scenarios that are to be released many months (and several releases) in the future. Just AH are having doubts, and not as confident as they once were. Personally, I thought that Ken said that RQ4 was 'in limbo', not dead, and that that it could well appear in some form, such as a companion. I am personally more interested in better game systems that just simpler ones, and that was what I thought the RQ4 effort was about. Many games companys live from supplement to supplement, like Steve Jackson Games, AH and Chaosium are both doing better than that. Glorantha is definately not about to disappear, and I strongly doubt that RQ is going to either. The worst that can happen is for AH to not renew their RQ license, and give it back to Chaosium. > > Cheers > > Dave Cake > > > > ditto  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA08030; Wed, 1 Sep 93 05:26:24 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA05585; Wed, 1 Sep 93 06:25:31 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 1 Sep 93 6:25:38 EDT From: Mystic Musk Ox To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: thoughts.... Date: Wed, 1 Sep 93 11:23 BST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <8F58D732EA2@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Some thoughts from the game I am currently running, experimental rules... Temples/Power On the high holy day, the priest/s lead the ceremony. Priests may contribute as many mp as desired, initiates may donate 1mp each. This amount is totalled and every 100 points gives 1 POW for use within the temple (much as currently in the rules). However, these points are not just for temple defence, but are retained for allocation by the High Priest of the Temple. At the moment I'm assuming they are available on a basis like the RunePower system (ie the effect is chosn when the points are allocated), but they could be allocated as for normal spell if people felt happier with that. Anyway, the point is that this give the Temple a fund of points to use, which can be used to defend the temple (as per RQ rules currently), OR to provide spells for casting by the priests, with the High Priest saying ok. Used points regenerate at the rate of 1/day. Points are only useable within the Temple, or maybe in related areas for such as Bless Crops etc. I'm also thinking that maybe the points could be used as permanent POW, with any points so used from the 'account' not regenerating until the new allocation on the High Holy day. This might cause a rush to spend points before the next High Holy day though. e.g. Temple gets 515 mp on the high holy day. This gives 5 points of divine magic allocatable by the High Priest. If 3 points are used (say) on an emergency Resurrection, then 1 point regenerates per day until back to 5. If 2 POW used to enchant an item, then the Temple is only regenerating back up to 3 points until the next high holy day, when the points are recalculated as normally. Thus a temple has a fund of points dependant on the number of worshippers. This provides encouragement for the priests etc to get people to attend. In return, the attendance gives the temple more points to cast throughout the year to help the initiates/worshippers of that cult. And it gives the High Priest a bit more responsibility! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Healing So far, I have been using the idea that Heal can only be used once per wound. However, I want to try the idea of First Aid being boosted by spirit spell 1pt/mp, and no seperate Healing spirit spell. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fatigue. I found that keeping track of short term fatigue proved a bit of a pain. So, I figured how about: 1/ calculate the effects of LT fatigue at the start of a melee (as usual) 2/ ignore ST fatigue during a combat 3/ after combat is over, require all participants to make another LT fatigue roll, or drop another LT level. (It seems to me that being tired always hits me once I stop doing something!) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Enhance/Improve (Cult Skill) Cults now teach these spells along with their other spirit spells, for the skills that they test as initiate requirements. They all have the effect of +5%/mp in the spell. Some have a difference eg Silence is similar to Improve(Sneak), Silence is +15%/mp, Bladesharp is similar to Improve(Wpn Attack), except for the +1 damage per level. I figure either: 1/ Make all spells operate at the Improve(Skill) level, or 2/ say that cults teaching the specific spirit spells eg Silence, Bladesharp get that effect, and any others merely get the Improve(Skill) spell. Thus War cult gets Bladesharp, but Underworld God gets Improve(Wpn Attack). Healing spells taught by Healer cults give +5% to First Aid and +1 healed. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comments? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- PS: Does anyone have any information about the cult of Gark the Calm? -----------------------------------------------------------------------------  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA10302; Wed, 1 Sep 93 06:46:34 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA09972; Wed, 1 Sep 93 07:45:44 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 1 Sep 93 7:45:49 EDT From: mc@cp.dias.ie To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Spirit combat rules Date: Wed, 1 Sep 93 12:43:16 BST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <8F6E49F2C88@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Does anybody else find the draft spirit combat rules flawed? Given that spirit combat regularly occurs (in my game) simultaneously with melee and spell combat I find the new rules too cumbersome and dice heavy. Does anybody have an alternative that they've tried out? I thought up this quick fix but haven't tried it in practice yet. Instead of the spirit combat attack and defense rolls I thought it would be easier to combine the combatants' MP and skill in spirit combat into a single score and resolve the conflict in the old (RQ3) fashion on the resistance table. This would mean the opponents use a value of MP+(skill/5) as the active/passive number on the table. They lose MPs in the usual fashion. This has the advantage of keeping the spirit combat to two rolls (success and damage) but uses the skill and raw Power of the combatants. For added complexity it should be possible to increase the damage done (MPs lost) at some cost in offensive or defensive skill. Myles. mc@cp.dias.ie  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA25446; Tue, 31 Aug 93 19:12:55 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA24602; Tue, 31 Aug 93 20:11:54 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 31 Aug 93 20:12:08 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Some RQ Lite ideas Date: Wed, 1 Sep 93 10:10:04 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <8EB53BC71DB@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > > Graeme Lindsell writes: > > > ii) Use Statx5 rolls more. In CoC the statx5 roll is used quite a > > bit: the intx5 idea roll, the edux5 know roll etc. I think these > > I like to handle it the other way round: let the players roll d100, and > see below which multiplyer te result is, this gives me several levels of > success without rolling dice over much. > > Of course this postulates that people can multiply numebers between one > and twenty with numbers between one and seven. Normal education ought to > produce this skill around the age of eleven... The aim of using a standard roll is to speed up play. Most, if not all players can multiply those numbers. Many can even do it quickly. What they can't do is do them instantly, and so the game slows down. To me, the best way to give a player a harmless introduction to a game is to give everything he needs to know on the character sheet. > > The exact nature of modifyers (multiply/divide versus add/substract) has > been the topic of many a discussion I had about RQ4 with the players of > my group. Both tend to be unfair and unbalanced: either the lower skills > are effectively reduced to zero (1 to 5 succeeds), or the higher skills > are penalized more than the lower. Neither is the desired effect. Any > ideas to solve this? > -- > Joerg Baumgartner rq4@sartar.toppoint.de > I've heard the "reduce to zero" argument before, and never understood it. If someone is facing a task that is beyond their ability, their chance _should_ be zero IMO. I like the way negative mods can reduce a chance of success of the lower skilled to nil while leaving the better trained with a decent chance of success. To me, it's a feature, not a bug.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA26371; Tue, 31 Aug 93 19:45:24 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AB25261; Tue, 31 Aug 93 20:44:34 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 31 Aug 93 20:44:38 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Comments on RQ Lite Date: Wed, 1 Sep 93 10:43:04 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <8EBDEFF6F1E@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Me replying to Burton replying to Loren >%% I like the one stat modifier idea, so let's say that base >%% chance for climb is based in STR, and since climb is pretty easy the > > This sounds like a harkening back to the "Ringworld" rules. It's not > a bad idea, but skills will need to be rearranged in different areas... > most craft skills woul dbe more DEX based, but some might be more dependant > on STR. > > This, would end up being VERY incompatible with RQ3, and not just a minor > change that could be converted easily. I doubt this would fly with the > "RQ3 similar" restriction. The compatibility with RQ3 rule is to allow the published scenarios to be used. Characters in published scenarios already have a set of skills worked out for them. I doubt the lower end skills (where the effect of differing bases is most profound) would be shown on most NPC's. Aside: I think AH are going too far with the "RQ3 compatible" idea. Few new editions of RPG's are completely compatible with previous editions: Champions 4th ed, GURPS 3rd (the missile combat rules), even AD&D2 (what I've seen of it) isn't entirely. I'd like more emphasis on a good rules system for RQ4, not one that sacrifices its integrity to backwards compatibliity with RQ3. > Hmmm. Well, I think if we are pushing for RQlite to be more Glorantha > based, i.e. back to it's roots, then an updated GoG with notes on divine > magic should be made. I don't know how AH has it's book data. If in > computer someplace it may be relatively painless to crank it out quickly. Personally, I'd prefer a updated "Cults of Prax". GoG was best for people who already knew about Glorantha. CoP would be better for new players. The appeal of the cult system is it shows people the types of behaviour in their society. Most of the cults in CoP have been updated in various places in RQ3 material (River of Cradles, Sun County, Humakt's in ToTRM 5): just bundle them together, add the small rules changes for RQ4 (say cult limits on spirit magic, and [please Invisible God!] yearly reusable rune magic for initiates) and you've got a solid introduction to good player cults. >Malcolm Cohen >%% What I want to see is a version of RQ which is not more "complicated" than >%% RQ3 but is more effective - i.e. the complications actually give us >%% something worthwhile (unlike, to pick everyone's favourite, RQ3 fatigue). >%% But I do not see the need to chop out bits of the system which have >%% withstood the test of time. > > Agreed. We want a streamlining of clumsy mechanics (using "rules of thumb" > rather than look-up tables, a-la the "ROLLx20 critcal, ROLLx5 special" > rule rather than a division or table look up, the use of > "A-B+10 or less" rule for the resistance table (now THAT was a waste of > book space :), etc. Agreed here as well. An elegant set of game mechanics is one thing that attracts me to a system. Re: the raging RQLite debate. There seems to be a basic division between people who want a simplified combat system and those who like the current system and don't want to lose detail. I think it might be more important for RQ 4 to be compatible with RQ Lite than with RQ3: probably best done by printing complete stats for both combat systems in the new scenarios. If the RQ Lite stats can be short this can be done without taking up too much space. 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 AA26439; Tue, 31 Aug 93 19:48:56 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25313; Tue, 31 Aug 93 20:48:07 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 31 Aug 93 20:48:10 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: More RQ-Lite comments Date: Wed, 1 Sep 93 10:46:51 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <8EBEE860D10@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > OK, ok, ok, mea culpa. > > In our game we just use roll * 5 or roll * 20. I admit it is not perfect, > so shoot me. However it is a lot easier than the current table checking. > The subtract 1 simply allows more critical hits/specials. > > I (and most of the players) are happy with the straight forward multiply > rule since it is so much quicker to work out. I put in the subtract 1 > to satisfy the rule lawyers that lurk on the net and failed in that respect :-(. > regards tim > > > Criticals/Specials/Fumlbes in RQ The discussion about the chance of criticals in RQ led me to take a gander at the table in the book. It goes like this: Skill Critical Special Fumble 01-07 01 01 96-00 08-10 01 01-02 96-00 11-12 01 01-02 97-00 13-17 01 01-03 97-00 18-22 01 01-04 97-00 23-27 01 01-05 97-00 28-29 01 01-06 97-00 30 01-02 01-06 97-00 31-32 01-02 01-07 98-00 etc This isn't a terribly memorable progression. The values are being rounded off, and so the critical=skill/20 changes from 01 to 01-02 at 30, rather than near any multiple of 20, and the changes in specials don't happen at any multiple of 5. As an alternative, try rounding up. The table then becomes: Skill Critical Special Fumble 01-05 01 01 96-00 06-10 01 01-02 96-00 11-15 01 01-03 96-00 16-20 01 01-04 96-00 21-25 01-02 01-05 97-00 26-30 01-02 01-06 97-00 31-35 01-02 01-07 97-00 36-40 01-02 01-08 97-00 41-45 01-03 01-09 98-00 It increases the number of criticals, specials and fumbles, but it is easier to calculate, and the "if (roll-1)x20 is a hit then the roll is a critical" rule works. Spell Attacks Heresy A more heretical concept: I was thinking about the dodge/parry controversy (ie should they be separate skills) and wondered "could the dodge system work for spell attacks?". Currently a spell attack needs a casting check (POW x 5 + magic modifier for RQIII spirit magic) and then a MP vs MP resistance roll. Instead, try the caster just making the one POW x 5 roll, and the target doing the same as a dodge like defense ie if the caster had a normal success, the target needs a normal success to block, if the caster specialed, the target needs a special or critical as well etc. This would change the effects of having a high POW quite a bit: instead of POW 20 opponents having a 50% chance of effecting each other, it would only be 20% in practice(ie a special). The chances of successfor widely differing POW changes as well: a POW 10 against POW 20 would still have a 50% chance of blocking most of the POW 20 attacks, and has a 10% chance of a special. Could this be a system RQ Lite could use? Has anyone tried to do this before? 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 AA23294; Wed, 1 Sep 93 12:15:32 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA24827; Wed, 1 Sep 93 13:14:34 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 1 Sep 93 13:14:42 EDT From: David Dunham (via RadioMail) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Spirit combat rules Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1993 10:14:06 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <8FC5EAC017C@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >Myles. mc@cp.dias.ie >Does anybody else find the draft spirit combat rules flawed? Given that spirit >combat regularly occurs (in my game) simultaneously with melee and spell >combat I find the new rules too cumbersome and dice heavy. Does anybody have >an alternative that they've tried out? Yes, and they're going back to MP vs MP. The Spirit Combat skill would determine the lowest MP you use on the resistance table (if you have POW 16 and 49% Spirit Combat, you always use at least 8 on the resistance table). The thought is that only shamans would learn Spirit Combat. There are also new spells like Spirit Dancing, tho I don't have the explanation. I suspect most of this detail is unnecessary -- it's all to support specialists, and becoming a shaman simply isn't a goal for most PCs. NPC shamans would be better served by the same space being used to describe _what_ they can do, not how. All the shaman detail could be in a separate book, "The Magic of Glorantha" (which would include all of sorcery, as well as shamans and additional details on cults). David Dunham * Software Designer * Pensee Corporation Voice/Fax: 206-783-7404 * AppleLink: DDUNHAM * Internet: ddunham@radiomail.net  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA21556; Wed, 1 Sep 93 11:47:01 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA23142; Wed, 1 Sep 93 12:46:02 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 1 Sep 93 12:46:07 EDT From: "Roderick Robertson, SC1-5, x52936" To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: thoughts.... Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1993 09:25 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <8FBE5A7272A@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >Enhance/Improve (Cult Skill) >Cults now teach these spells along with their other spirit spells, for >the skills that they test as initiate requirements. >They all have the effect of +5%/mp in the spell. >Some have a difference eg Silence is similar to Improve(Sneak), Silence >is +15%/mp, Bladesharp is similar to Improve(Wpn Attack), except for the +1 >damage per level. I figure either: >1/ Make all spells operate at the Improve(Skill) level, or >2/ say that cults teaching the specific spirit spells eg Silence, Bladesharp > get that effect, and any others merely get the Improve(Skill) spell. > Thus War cult gets Bladesharp, but Underworld God gets Improve(Wpn Attack). > Healing spells taught by Healer cults give +5% to First Aid and +1 healed. I'd say that Improve(Skill) generally adds 15% to the skill, with some exceptions: Bladesharp takes 10% and turns it into 1 point of damage, Healsharp turns 10% into one point of Damage healed, Parrysharp might take that 10% and turn it into two points of Armor (only on the parrying weapon), etc. This could also open the way for Improve Attack, which adds 15% to your attack skill, but no extra damage. Also remember the reverse spells, like Dullblade, which Subtract from the target's skill. Howabout Dullheal, which makes an opponent's Medic more likely to blow his roll? (NB. I used -Sharp and Dull- only to suggest similarities in how the spell works. I think most of the spells above are named horribly, and do not suggest that those be the real names). I'd suggest, however, that -Sharp and Dull- spells be on a Cult-only basis, and only available for the Cult skills. Improve (Skill) would have many applications outside of combat. What about non-physical skills? would there be Improve (Read Lunar)? Improve (World Lore)?  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA21561; Wed, 1 Sep 93 11:47:05 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA23144; Wed, 1 Sep 93 12:46:09 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 1 Sep 93 12:46:11 EDT From: "Roderick Robertson, SC1-5, x52936" To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RQ4 Diet Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1993 09:38 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <8FBE6664C49@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> My two cents worth (When did front teeth get to be currency?) on RQ Lite: Instead of trying to make a rules set where you have to include notes in each supplement on how to use it, include how to modify RQ Classic in RQ Lite. To Clarify: In the RQ Lite rules, include a chapter on how to read RQ Classic character descriptions and turn them into RQ Lite. "To calculate Armor coverage, take the average of the AP on the Head, Chest and Abdomen of the Classic character. This is the Character's Armor Value" "As we only use one Weapon Skill in RQ Lite, use the Highest percentage in the weapon as the Weapon Skill" Doing this allows the supplement writer to write to one set of rules, and also shows the RQ Lite GM that there is a lot more out there for him *If he wants it*. I'd say include a start-up scenario/campaign setting written in RQ Lite in the rules, but after that all supplements would be pure RQ Classic. As a side note, I use a "RQ Lite" for my own campaigns for NPC Spear-carriers. Who cares if they aren't fully blown characters, they are only meant to slow down the PC's for a few rounds while the major NPC's get away or arm up. Roderick Robertson  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA06835; Thu, 2 Sep 93 17:37:56 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA22876; Thu, 2 Sep 93 18:35:31 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 2 Sep 93 18:35:43 EDT From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Some RQ Lite ideas Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1993 18:38:12 MEZ Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <919BA2B7B18@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> In <8EB53BC71DB@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu>, you write: >> I like to handle it the other way round: let the players roll d100, and >> see below which multiplyer te result is, this gives me several levels of >> success without rolling dice over much. >> Of course this postulates that people can multiply numebers between one >> and twenty with numbers between one and seven. Normal education ought to >> produce this skill around the age of eleven... > The aim of using a standard roll is to speed up play. Most, if not > all players can multiply those numbers. Many can even do it quickly. > What they can't do is do them instantly, and so the game slows down. > To me, the best way to give a player a harmless introduction to a > game is to give everything he needs to know on the character sheet. >> The exact nature of modifyers (multiply/divide versus add/substract) has >> been the topic of many a discussion I had about RQ4 with the players of >> my group. Both tend to be unfair and unbalanced: either the lower skills >> are effectively reduced to zero (1 to 5 succeeds), or the higher skills >> are penalized more than the lower. Neither is the desired effect. Any >> ideas to solve this? > I've heard the "reduce to zero" argument before, and never understood > it. If someone is facing a task that is beyond their ability, their > chance _should_ be zero IMO. I like the way negative mods can reduce > a chance of success of the lower skilled to nil while leaving the > better trained with a decent chance of success. To me, it's a > feature, not a bug. Well, the way I see it there is a problem that demands one success level higher than usual. Some guy take it as routine nevertheless, some hve to switch from routine to alert, some who do it in alert state quite reliable really have to think and work hard to achieve it, and some who usually have to work hard now arre chanceless. The problem with this philosophy is that RQ know only fumble >=100-(100-sk)/20, 100 =>true failure >sk, >=96 =>true success <=sk, <=05 =>true special <=sk/5 critical <=sk/20, 1 =>true if sk>=1 (supercrit etc.) ... where I'd like to see fumble >(100-sk/20) real failure >(100-sk/5) failure >sk+10 stand off <=sk+10 marginal success <=sk success <=sk-10 good success <=sk/2 special <=sk/5 critical <=sk/20 (supercrit etc.) ... possibly with Tim Posney's system of multiplying, and getting skills up more difficult than now Yes, that means even more calculation, or looking up in a table for less-than-lighning calculators, but that's the style I'd like to see. Opinions, Flames...? -- Joerg Baumgartner rq4@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1993 13:59 CDT Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA29265; Wed, 1 Sep 93 13:59:45 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA29886; Wed, 1 Sep 93 14:58:41 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 1 Sep 93 14:58:50 EDT From: Simon Basham To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Is the rulers the real issue Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <8FE1BD44C37@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> First a statement to think about: "Are the Rules the real issue in the unpopularity of RuneQuest???" So far most discussions I have read seem to assume they are and indeed until recently I thought so too. I recently found a close analogy to RQ in my local club which I am on the committee of. Club membership needed a boost, we were putting up posters, handing out leaflets etc... some people where even phoning me up to ask for more details and sounded really keen. But in the end we get very few new members, when we do they think the club is great and within a few weeks all their friends are coming. Conclusion> People like the club and think that any costs to themselves are worthwhile, but they either don't see the posters we put up or don't bother to follow them through. Why??? I don't know. My RQ group is very similar. Most of my group is new to RQ, but once they play it they think it is wonderful and quickly ditch games like D&D et al.. So how does this relate to RQ???? I don't think that the rules are the main issue. Most people who go into a games store buy a game on the strength of the price, the cover artwork and any reviews they may have read. In most cases people are not in a possition to flip extensively through the rules before deciding to buy, so whilst improving the rules is obviously very important and will bring in new players issues such as the games product and press image are more important. I suggest a few items: Posters in shops (preferably large and colour) Better pricing of the basic rules and a better intro adventure (this is surprisingly seen to be very important, most people want something they play immediately) Better rules presentation, lets face it the box is very dull if your a 14 year old and the blurb on the back is hardly going to make people go out and buy it. Get it into the shops, if people can't see it they won't buy it!!! I know that many shop owners don't buy RQ because they think it is dead, so get into magazines as often as possible. How about AH releasing an official mini scenario for publication in magazines in the UK/US etc.. I think IMHO that rather concentrate on trying to beef up things with RQ4 it is more benefilcial in the long term to re-launch RQ3. Make shops wont to sell it, get it on the front of shelves and make people want to buy it. Recent supplements have had excellent production and wonderful cover art, lets carry this over to the rules. A new box and a lower price shouldn't be to expensive and would make a hell of a difference. (The flow of crap has now ended, normality is resumed) Jarec@CIX.Compulink.Co.UK  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA16438; Wed, 1 Sep 93 19:44:10 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA11086; Wed, 1 Sep 93 20:43:16 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 1 Sep 93 20:43:24 EDT From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Spirit combat rules Date: Wed, 01 Sep 93 13:01:37 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <903DA8F4428@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> mc@cp.dias.ie writes: > Does anybody else find the draft spirit combat rules flawed? Given that spiri > combat regularly occurs (in my game) simultaneously with melee and spell > combat I find the new rules too cumbersome and dice heavy. Does anybody have Well, truth to tell...no. In practice, there's only one more die roll than there was in the old days, and since being fully committed to spirit combat means you aren't doing anything effective in physical combat...I can't say I understand the problem. ------------------------------ 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 AA05054; Wed, 1 Sep 93 15:16:11 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA03267; Wed, 1 Sep 93 16:15:13 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 1 Sep 93 16:15:19 EDT From: David Dunham (via RadioMail) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re^n: RQ4 Diet Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1993 13:14:50 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <8FF618B5931@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) >> I think you have this backwards. Any rules set can be _complicated_, but >> they're hard to simplify. It's moderately easy to say, _in a separate >> place_, "OK, you want to be more detailed about who hits first? Here are >> some rules that take into account reach and weapon type." It's harder to >> see strike rules and then see a section that says "Oh by the way, you can >> not use these" (which ElfQuest does!). A beginning GM can more easily add >> complexity if it's to his taste, but it's hard to remove something without >> completely understanding the system. > >I said what I meant. A system that is designed for a more complicated >approach can usually be stripped down without throwing things out of >wack, as long as you understand how the parts fit together. Adding extra >often imbalance things in ways that are difficult to fix. I know you wrote what you meant, but I still think you're wrong. And then you agree with me -- that you have to know the system in order to simplify it. By definition, new GMs don't know the system, so they have to learn the entire complex system before they can simplify it. This is a mistake in rules presentation (made by e.g. ElfQuest). I definitely agree that adding things will imbalance a game, but we're not asking people to do that, we're asking them to buy a rules supplement where things have been thought through (much of it being stuff that's already there today). I'll say it again: I don't think any part of RQ has to be thrown away. I think that RuneQuest should be presented in a way that it is clearly an elegant, easy-to-use system (saying "New Streamlined Rules" on the box isn't enough, it has to _look_ streamlined by virtue of being short), and the best way to do that is to print the optional rules in a separate publication. >But my real point was that there is almost no point that someone cannot >argue that a rules set could be a little simpler and a little quicker. >My question always is "What did you decide to ignore to get it that way?" Are you familiar with Prince Valiant? BTW, I don't see RQ-Lite as a given, that's why I'm arguing that it's a good idea and trying to show ways it could be done. >From: Dustin Tranberg >Especially bleeding. Bleeding is wonderful! There's nothing like >having to rush under the sword of the enemy to try to keep a friend >from having his/her life leak all over the floor, of knowing that >someone who was knocked out in mid-combat might be dead by the time >it's over, and isn't just lying in stasis on the floor. My RQ3 house rule was something like having to make a CON vs (negative HP + number of rounds below zero) roll on the resistance table. This obviously involved some bookkeeping, but less than on a per-wound basis. And even it shouldn't be in the basic game. >From: "Roderick Robertson, SC1-5, x52936" > Instead of trying to make a rules set where you have to include >notes in each supplement on how to use it, include how to modify RQ >Classic in RQ Lite. > > In the RQ Lite rules, include a chapter on how to read RQ Classic >character descriptions and turn them into RQ Lite. Yes, this is what I'd had in mind. I'd go a little further, and print the single armor value (and major wound level, if that's part of RQ-Lite) in supplements, and maybe put the single weapon skill in boldface. > As a side note, I use a "RQ Lite" for my own campaigns for NPC >Spear-carriers. Who cares if they aren't fully blown characters, they >are only meant to slow down the PC's for a few rounds while the major >NPC's get away or arm up. I dislike having different rules for PCs and NPCs, and I suspect one reason may be the fact that Rurik Runespear was killed by trollkin. In RQ, any foe (especially in multiple) is not to be taken lightly, and the rules should reflect this. >From: Simoe, the cover artwork >and any reviews they may have read. In most cases people are not in a >possition to flip extensively through the rules before deciding to buy, >so whilst improving the rules is obviously very important and will bring >in new players issues such as the games product and press image are more >important. You raise some good points. While in most shops you can't see the rules before you buy, you _can_ see them when you get home. I have quite a few games sitting on my shelf that I'll never play because the rules didn't appeal to me. Simple rules won't matter to the would-be GM, but it's only when he decides it's something he can run that his players might buy copies. And I think the best way to get a press image of easy-to-play is to be in fact, easy-to-play. Presumably, marketing issues would be addressed in any new edition (be it a full new RQ4 version, or RQ-Lite). And the most important one might be, lose the box. That has to add at least $1 to the cost, and Avalon-Hill doesn't know what size to make boxes anyway.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA05548; Wed, 1 Sep 93 15:24:53 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA03593; Wed, 1 Sep 93 16:22:26 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 1 Sep 93 16:22:33 EDT From: burt@ptltd.com (Burton Choinski) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: COMMENTS Date: Wed, 1 Sep 93 16:18:38 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <8FF809100DE@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Graeme A Lindsell %% Instead, try the caster just making the one POW x 5 roll, %% and the target doing the same as a dodge like defense ie if %% the caster had a normal success, the target needs a normal %% success to block, if the caster specialed, the target needs %% a special or critical as well etc. Interesting. Matching characters of equal power, you get a high of 25% effectiveness (on average) at around 10 POW, decreasing as you have higher or lower POWs. =============================================================================== Roderick Robertson %% Instead of trying to make a rules set where you have to include %% notes in each supplement on how to use it, include how to modify RQ %% Classic in RQ Lite. This sounds like the better way to me. Much easier to prune then try and wedge new rules in later. %% I'd say that Improve(Skill) generally adds 15% to the skill, with %% some exceptions: Bladesharp takes 10% and turns it into 1 point of %% damage, Healsharp turns 10% into one point of Damage healed, %% Parrysharp might take that 10% and turn it into two points of Armor %% (only on the parrying weapon), etc. This could also open the way for %% Improve Attack, which adds 15% to your attack skill, but no extra %% damage. Also remember the reverse spells, like Dullblade, which %% Subtract from the target's skill. Howabout Dullheal, which makes an %% opponent's Medic more likely to blow his roll? %% I'd suggest, however, that -Sharp and Dull- spells be on a %% Cult-only basis, and only available for the Cult skills. Improve %% (Skill) would have many applications outside of combat. Don't forget "Reduce ". Granted, it obly works for some skills and is probably rarer. "Reduce Scan" makes the air hazy or foggy, perhaps, etc. I like the idea, though. A consistant extension. %% What about non-physical skills? would there be Improve (Read %% Lunar)? Improve (World Lore)? Why not? If we go on the idea that they are not spells, but spirits that do your bidding, why can't it whisper the info into your ear? :) I would think that anything Knowledge based be fairly rare, and Communication based be extremely rare. Physical skills (Agility, Manipulation, Stealth, Perception) I can see a spirit being asked to help out with much more. -- Burton  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA05368; Wed, 1 Sep 93 15:21:32 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA03505; Wed, 1 Sep 93 16:20:03 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 1 Sep 93 16:20:10 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Is the rulers the real issue Date: Wed, 1 Sep 93 16:20:44 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <8FF76AE1261@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Jarec has a lot of good points about publicity. If you have seen the French edition of RQ you will know what I mean when I say we should do things here more like they do there. Oriflam has some great art and the example story is better. If AH gives up the licence perhaps Chaosium could encourage Oriflam to do an english language edition. In any case some of the art from the French edition would make great posters. Does anyone know who has the licence for distributing RQ in Quebec? Six million potential buyers... - Paul PS> I suppose it is our duty to recruit newbies as well; I do this to some extent but probably should try to set off a chain reaction. Have not trained any new GMs for years... the newer people seem more interested in Vampire, etc. - the `third generation' games.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA00614; Wed, 1 Sep 93 14:23:07 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA00998; Wed, 1 Sep 93 15:22:05 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 1 Sep 93 15:22:09 EDT From: "Loren J. Miller" To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Is the rulers the real issue Date: 01 Sep 1993 15:22:51 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <8FE7F0A1BE4@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> I agree that the rules aren't the most important part of the RQ renaissance, but they are the focus of this list. I'd prefer to see the rules discussions stay here instead of filling up the digest, which I'd prefer to see concentrating on Glorantha and on finished rules ideas, rather than incomplete ideas. That's also why I think we can afford to spend time on this list working out rules variants. Also, if you are against RQ Lite then just ignore the RQ Lite postings. They're marked well enough. I think there are enough people on this list to support two development efforts, one for RQ Lite and one for RQ4-big-and-hairy, and don't think that our discussion is in danger of losing steam because of fragmentation. In other words, if the idea of RQ Lite just makes you want to puke then keep your feelings to yourself. Participate in a positive way or not at all. Somebody could lose an eye... That's enough soapbox oratory for now. 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 AA08098; Wed, 1 Sep 93 16:09:57 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA05744; Wed, 1 Sep 93 17:09:09 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 1 Sep 93 17:09:12 EDT From: "Loren J. Miller" To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Unsubscribing Date: 01 Sep 1993 17:10:09 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <90048585503@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> To sign off from the list do the normal thing: send email to listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu subject line doesn't matter much first line of message should say "unsub rq-playtest" followed by several blank lines That's it. -- Loren  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA05272; Wed, 1 Sep 93 02:16:19 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA03354; Wed, 1 Sep 93 03:15:28 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 1 Sep 93 3:15:35 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Maneuver Date: Wed, 1 Sep 93 17:13:54 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <8F262800747@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > > > OK, a quick and dirty compromise for Maneuver. How about characters > get the CHOICE of 1) DEXx5 > or 2) Weapon skill I'd be inclined to just use weapon skill. Dex x 5 is a bit lenient. I'd like to expand the use of the weapon skills from just attack or just parry.The way RQ3 handles the knowledge a skill covers has always seemed strange: one skill for hiding in any area, 2 skills to cover most social skills (orate, fast talk), one to treat wounds of any sort, and one for attack and one for parry for each and every weapon. For RQ Lite I'd say just one weapon skill for use as attack parry and maneuver for each group of weapons, with perhaps an unfamiliarity bonus eg for using a scimitar if you usually use a broadsword. > > for any Maneuver-type roll. > > At least it's simple, > That's usually a virtue, and sometimes a curse. > Dustin 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 AA05479; Wed, 1 Sep 93 02:33:11 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA03568; Wed, 1 Sep 93 03:32:24 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 1 Sep 93 3:32:26 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Long Fights Date: Wed, 1 Sep 93 17:30:56 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <8F2AAF778FE@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > > Second, the special success options suggested elsewhere, in particular > the FEINT, which does nothing on a normal success, but on a special > success negates the opponent's next defense. Not quite: they need a special parry to stop the feint. I don't like the way feint is implemented wrto Dodge. A feint has drastic effects on a parrying opponent, but just halves your chance with a dodge. Actually, that's one reason why I'd like to remove Dodge as a combat option from RQ4: It'd allow us to use the Dodge style "need a special parry to stop a special attack" rule for parry instead. The dodge style conflict of skills is better than parry IMHO, but if you use it for parry and keep dodge as the same then there is no reson to ever parry. Maybe we could go back to original RQ3 dodge (ie you need a critical dodge to stop a critical hit: a normal or a special has no effect at all) and give parry the later style of defense ie a special hit against an ordinary parry gets through but does normal damage, a critical against normal parry does unblocked special damage > > Dustin > 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 AA11874; Wed, 1 Sep 93 17:29:44 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA08242; Wed, 1 Sep 93 18:28:51 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 1 Sep 93 18:28:57 EDT From: Pete c/o Tom Yates To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Enough Is Enough! Date: Wed, 1 Sep 93 18:31:58 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <9019C042546@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Recently I've been thinking about starting up a new campaign. Normally I run a RuneQuest Glorantha campaign every couple of years. I'm overdue to start a new one, but the idea repels me. RQLite, RQ4, RQ3, RQDiet...somewhere along the line, something went wrong. Something got lost between all the discussion and debate -- the essential sense of *fun* that I haven't seen much since RQ2. RQ2 -- now, *that* appeals to me. Am I the only one who wants to run RQ2, read RQ2 material, and pretend that the last ten years never happened? RuneQuest needs Greg Stafford. No offense intended to the many who've worked on RQ since (except for Nick Atlas -- *him* I'll gladly offend), but RQ/Glorantha needs its creator at the helm to flourish properly. Chaosium seems to have done well for quite some time -- maybe they could handle RQ now? RQ has never been a profitable proposition for Avalon Hill, and it seems unlikely that it ever will be. Yet it must have made money for Chaosium. Maybe, someday... Or maybe I'm just having a bad day. -->Pete ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Maranci Malden, Massachusetts pete@slough.mit.edu or rune@trystero.com or rune@ace.com "Son, I am able," she said "though you scare me." "Watch," said I "Beloved," I said, "watch me scare you though." Said she "Able am I, Son." TMBG  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA06079; Wed, 1 Sep 93 03:17:21 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA04071; Wed, 1 Sep 93 04:16:31 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 1 Sep 93 4:16:35 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: that ol' RQ Lite thingy again Date: Wed, 1 Sep 93 18:15:04 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <8F3677E7204@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > > > The Lite rules are allowed to have a weak explanation of Divine magic, they > will already have a pretty weak explanation of spirit magic, fairly weak skills > rules, fairly weak combat rules. The point is that they should have enough in > the RQ Lite rules for you to pick up a module for RQ Normal (or should that > be RQ Hevy?) and play it straight away. I think that knowing what Divine magic > is and the basics of how it works (if not every obscure spell) is essential. Wasn't this the idea behind the RQ Basic set, which resulted in 4 pages at the start of each package about how to use it with RQ Basic? I don't think "less complex" = "weak" as you seem to. To me, the most important things about RQ Lite rules are that the be a) short and b) produce similar results to the full RQ4 rules. It's no good producing a system that when used is much more lethal tha the full combat rules. > To set up RQ Lite otherwise is a very bad publishing move - you now > have two (very similar) games to support, one that only 'newbies' play, so > no one wants to write for it. RQ Lite will only work if it is compatible with > supplements. Otherwise it is only useful for demo games and introducing your > kid sister to RQ, and becomes rather a white elephant. Which means that the RQ Lite rules have to be slim enough that stats for RQ Lite characters can be included in a module without taking up to much space. The comment "no-one wants to write for" seemed to be what happened to RQ Basic set: there was never a single publication that only needed the rules in the basic set. I don't know why: a basic set module would have been very easily adapted by a deluxe set GM, and a good plot would work in both systems. > RQ Lite might involve reprinting parts of GoG, and it might not. It > certainly should involve divine magic, in a weak form if it must be. What I think it has to contain is some cults. Cults show a new player how people behave in the world, instead of acting like "generic fighter". Whether you can include cults without divine magic is the question. If you don't include priests I think you can, since initiates almost never use divine magic anyway > I still don't know what all the fuss is about, people have got so > excited about the RQ Lite idea, I have no objection, but the RQ Lite rules > seem like a fairly small part of the overall RQ4 effort. My only concern is Well right now there is no RQ4 effort, since AH decided to cancel the mid-94 publishing date. I think that's a stupid descision, but when has AH ever done anything smart with RQ? > that many of the RQ Lite proposals look strongly like recipes for publishing > disaster to me, propelled by a sort of fervour about RQ Lite that the more > we can remove from it and still have it playable the better. It has to not only > be playable, but recognisably RQ as well, and with sufficent rules to run a > simple Glorantha based adventure. Otherwise what is the point? > The fervour is from fanatics who want to resurrect a dead RPG. That's the point. It doesn't seem like the "RQ Renaissance" has done anything except sell a few more products to converts. The other discussion (which has been folded into the RQ Lite debate) concerns simpler combat systems, which is mainly what I post about Cheers > Dave Cake > >  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA16072; Wed, 1 Sep 93 19:30:53 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA10814; Wed, 1 Sep 93 20:29:36 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 1 Sep 93 20:29:53 EDT From: David Cheng To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Enough Is Enough! Date: Wed, 1 Sep 93 20:27:43 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <9039F753524@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> # RQ2 -- now, *that* appeals to me. Am I the only one who wants to # run RQ2, read RQ2 material, and pretend that the last ten years never # happened? No, you're not the only one. But, I for one think there are some positive things in RQ3. Limited spirit magic & rune magic spell lists, new cult frameworks in GoG (I won't say 'writeups'), and a few more I'm sure. Certainly, with hindsight, we all wish the sale to AH had never been transacted. But, I don't think the last 10 years have been totally negative... # RuneQuest needs Greg Stafford. No offense intended to the # many who've worked on RQ since (except for Nick Atlas -- *him* I'll # gladly offend), but RQ/Glorantha needs its creator at the helm to # flourish properly. Chaosium seems to have done well for quite some # time -- maybe they could handle RQ now? RQ has never been a profitable # proposition for Avalon Hill, and it seems unlikely that it ever will # be. Yet it must have made money for Chaosium. Greg is not enthusiastic about _RuneQuest_ much anymore. He IS enthusiastic about _Glorantha_, however. _King of Sartar_ is one of the first of a set of similar products we can expect. Maybe we'll even live to see _Glorantha: The Game_ ;-) As I understand it, Stafford will continue to support RQ by: 1) writing new material, 2) advising others who are writing material, and 3) providing material to _Tales of the Reaching Moon_. But, we should not hold our collective breath on Chaosium reclaiming RQ. I've spoken to Greg about this several times, and he feels Chaosium cannot try to live in the past. I have also approached AH about buying the rights, and they have not been at all open to even discussing the matter in a professional way. The fate of the game is in the hands of guys like David Hall, who, without any real support, went and started his own RQ magazine. And Oliver Jovanovic, who has spent many hundreds of his own dollars (over $1000?) and _hundreds_ of hours of time, so that the rest of us can at least try to hammer out the next version of RQ. Are we becoming crotchety old men, stuck in the past, while other gamers go on to "third"/fouth/fifth generation games? I don't think so, because I think the core RQ _rules_ still stand up to any _rules system_ on the market. I also think that the world setting of Glorantha is the best around. I think the cyber and vampire things are fads that will pass. I really do. But there are some good, sophisticated, intelligent gamers who are playing these games instead of RQ. I just hope we loyalists can keep the flame burning until these folks 'mature out of' the games they're playing now, so they will have a RQ to discover/rediscover (presumptuous, admittedly). More on this topic when I clear off the junk on my desk. # Peter Maranci *David Cheng drcheng@sales.stern.nyu.edu / d.cheng@genie.geis.com Ask me about RuneQuest-Con! (212) 472-7752 [before midnight]  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA22856; Wed, 1 Sep 93 22:07:58 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA14055; Wed, 1 Sep 93 23:07:04 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 1 Sep 93 23:07:12 EDT From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: New addition with annoying questions. Date: Wed, 1 Sep 93 22:03:35 -0500 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <9063FC1322F@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Okay, now that I'm on the list, and I've been running a draft/playtest campaign for a few months now, I've a few questions: Are there any copies of what has been done with sorcery floating about? My draft is the second draft, and it has no sorcery rules or alterations. I had heard that there have been changes to the shaman's fetch since the second draft made it out, what are they? Are there pertinent archives for this list? All for now.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA23216; Wed, 1 Sep 93 22:22:10 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA14456; Wed, 1 Sep 93 23:21:18 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 1 Sep 93 23:21:23 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: New addition with annoying questions. Date: Wed, 1 Sep 93 23:21:08 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <9067CF74CEA@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Do people want a repost of Mike & Paul's system (actually a somewhat updated version from the last, merging with some ideas from the RQIV Draft) or shall I just send something to 'jacobus'? - Paul  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA27341; Thu, 2 Sep 93 01:53:22 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA17899; Thu, 2 Sep 93 02:52:26 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 2 Sep 93 2:52:31 EDT From: davidc@cs.uwa.edu.au (David Cake) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: RQ Magic Date: Thu, 2 Sep 93 14:51:00 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <90A01286DBA@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> I have a few questions about RQ4 magic to get people talking about RQ4 again. The first is about shamanic fetches. The RQ4d2 rules say that a shamans fetch gets two separate actions, presumably most of the time a cast spell action or two. Does anyone besides me think that this could have a really big effect on game balance, partly because all shamans effectively have an allied spirit, andpartly because there is no species max on fetch POW, and while PC shamans are unlikely to have fetchs as gross as some NPCs (like in Dorastor - Mistress Last and Babool both clock in at around 280, from memory) . Does anyone have a big problem with this - it seemed like it was put in almost as an afterthought, and it is a big change, making shamans way more combat deadly. The second is a speculative one about sorcery. With reference to Burton Cholinskis Sorcery with studies system, does anybody have objections to this in principle? There are some problems with it from a practical point of view (its very incompatible with existing sorcery), but I want to know what people think about the basic idea. The basicgame effects are to complicate sorcery for most users, but give practitioners grater flexibilty and many new abilities (some of them rather curious and many not very useful). I liked the basic idea a lot but hadproblems with the implementation, as I thought that Burtons striving for purity of implementation made it very incompatible, and was inappropriate in other parts. I also thought that it could benefit from being combined with the Paul Reilly Presence system. So I have given some thought to writing my own version with the emphasis on compatibility with existing rules and the draft version. Will I get shouted down for overcomplication? or does the idea meet with guarded approval? I like the idea, because it seems to me that it has the capability to bring a very Ars Magica like feel (or manipulating complex laws, and with the possibilty of on the spot creation of complex spells) to advanced practitioners of sorcery. SHould I present my version? Cheers Dave Cake  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA27881; Thu, 2 Sep 93 02:31:46 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA18282; Thu, 2 Sep 93 03:30:37 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 2 Sep 93 3:30:55 EDT From: davidc@cs.uwa.edu.au (David Cake) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Enough Is Enough! Date: Thu, 2 Sep 93 15:29:23 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <90AA45721BF@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > > RQLite, RQ4, RQ3, RQDiet...somewhere along the line, something > went wrong. Something got lost between all the discussion and debate -- > the essential sense of *fun* that I haven't seen much since RQ2. Well, I thought that parts of Dorastor were pretty funny. I honestly think that running Dorastor and Ralzakark with a good high powered party (lunars maybe) could be a barrel of laughs. And the same goes for much of SunCounty (Melisandes Hand particularly). Rules do not need to be intrinsically fun, they are the foundations behind your game. Maybe you are just spending too much time online :-) - I participate enthusiastically on the debate, but forget it all when I actually play. Honestly, if the debate is upsetting you, you may be in the wrong place - to enjoy participating in the rq4 playtest discussion, you must have a streak of rules lawyerness - something that I find many people who have played and run a large number of games develop, but not everybody. Some os us enjoy, at least alittle, nitpicking over the effects of various rules, and if you don't , you might just have to put up with it. > RQ2 -- now, *that* appeals to me. Am I the only one who wants to > run RQ2, read RQ2 material, and pretend that the last ten years never > happened? Certainly not, there are hidebound conservatives all over the place, and certainly a few in my neck of the woods. But I play primarily in Glorantha, and the various RQ3 products have expanded my vision of Glorantha a great deal, beyond the almost entirely Prax based campaigns people tended to run before. Think about World of Glorantha, Elder Secrets, Sun County, much of the stuff in Gods of Glorantha. These are also RQ3 products, and I enjoy running RQ more now than I did. RQ4 is in many ways more like RQ2 from a rules perspective - the Easy/Medium /Hard skills is in many ways a return to RQ2, some new skills are old skills returned. But that doesn't really matter, what I like is that RQ4 not only fixes many rules glitches and inadequacies, it also has a feel that is more in tune with Glorantha than I think any previous version. The chracter generation lets me make characters that feel Gloranthan easily, the section on Spirit Lore feels very Gloranthan, the names and descriptions of spells feel Gloranthan. I like it. > > RuneQuest needs Greg Stafford. No offense intended to the > many who've worked on RQ since (except for Nick Atlas -- *him* I'll > gladly offend), but RQ/Glorantha needs its creator at the helm to > flourish properly. Chaosium seems to have done well for quite some > time -- maybe they could handle RQ now? RQ has never been a profitable > proposition for Avalon Hill, and it seems unlikely that it ever will > be. Yet it must have made money for Chaosium. They don't want too handle it. I would certainly see Greg work on 'Glorantha : the Game ' or whatever it is called these days. I think that the real way for RQ to take off is not just a new edition and maybe RQ Lite, (though a flashy FASA style campaign to launch a new edition could help a lot), but a rekimdling of interest in Glorantha generally. And I would like to see a HeroQuest type thingy before too many years have passed. I seem to recall that there were even playtest rumous recently. > > Maybe, someday... > > Or maybe I'm just having a bad day. > > -->Pete > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Peter Maranci Malden, Massachusetts > pete@slough.mit.edu or rune@trystero.com or rune@ace.com > "Son, I am able," she said "though you scare me." "Watch," said I "Beloved," > I said, "watch me scare you though." Said she "Able am I, Son." TMBG > > Dave Cake  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA28062; Thu, 2 Sep 93 02:45:56 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA18395; Thu, 2 Sep 93 03:45:02 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 2 Sep 93 3:45:05 EDT From: davidc@cs.uwa.edu.au (David Cake) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Is the rulers the real issue Date: Thu, 2 Sep 93 15:43:44 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <90AE1906000@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > > I agree that the rules aren't the most important part of the RQ > renaissance, but they are the focus of this list. I'd prefer to see > the rules discussions stay here instead of filling up the digest, > which I'd prefer to see concentrating on Glorantha and on finished > rules ideas, rather than incomplete ideas. Yar, what he said. RQ Lite is filling up a lot of Digest space, I think that the rq4 list should be a little rules lawyers ghetto, and more Glorantha on the Daily. > > That's also why I think we can afford to spend time on this list > working out rules variants. Also, if you are against RQ Lite then just > ignore the RQ Lite postings. They're marked well enough. I think there Because many people have opinions about particular versions of RQ Lite. I kind of like the idea, but hate some of the versions that have been presented. At the moment there is not really an RQ Lite development effort, there is an RQ Lite debate about what format it should be produced in. I find some ideas for the format problematic. > keep your feelings to yourself. Participate in a positive way or not > at all. Participating positively doesn't mean agreeing with what is said, it means offering alternatives, and ways that things can be improved. > > Somebody could lose an eye... Dangerous, them flying electrons :-) > > That's enough soapbox oratory for now. I think soapbox oratory is something that you can never have enough of. :-) > whoah, > +++++++++++++++++++++++23 > Loren Miller internet: MILLERL@wharton.upenn.edu > "Science" does not remove the terror of the gods. > Dave Cake  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA00265; Thu, 2 Sep 93 05:38:12 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA20631; Thu, 2 Sep 93 06:36:53 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 2 Sep 93 6:37:24 EDT From: pvanheus@cs.uct.ac.za (Peter van Heusden) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RQ Magic Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1993 12:36:22 +0200 (SAT) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <90DBF101B6E@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Dave writes: > The second is a speculative one about sorcery. With reference to > Burton Cholinskis Sorcery with studies system, does anybody have objections to > this in principle? There are some problems with it from a practical point of No, I actually like it. Very AM like. > view (its very incompatible with existing sorcery), but I want to know what > people think about the basic idea. The basicgame effects are > to complicate sorcery for most users, but give practitioners grater flexibilty > and many new abilities (some of them rather curious and many not very useful). I liked the basic idea a lot but hadproblems with the implementation, as I That's the direction I like. Flexibility is the heart of a good system imho.. half the fun in AM is being able to whatever you like. > thought that Burtons striving for purity of implementation made it very > incompatible, and was inappropriate in other parts. I also thought that it > could benefit from being combined with the Paul Reilly Presence system. > So I have given some thought to writing my own version with the > emphasis on compatibility with existing rules and the draft version. Will > I get shouted down for overcomplication? or does the idea meet with guarded > approval? I like the idea, because it seems to me that it has the capability to > bring a very Ars Magica like feel (or manipulating complex laws, and with the > possibilty of on the spot creation of complex spells) to advanced practitioners > of sorcery. SHould I present my version? PLEASE, send along > Cheers > Dave Cake > > Peter ******************************************************************************* Peter van Heusden One man one newsfeed CS3, UCT, Cape Town, RSA "but I love the setting. and the hippies pvanheus@cs.uct.ac.za will be back in the fall" Red_Guest on MediaMOO  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA12062; Thu, 2 Sep 93 11:33:59 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA06657; Thu, 2 Sep 93 12:32:46 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 2 Sep 93 12:32:53 EDT From: burt@ptltd.com (Burton Choinski) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: SORCERY Date: Thu, 2 Sep 93 09:22:41 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <913ADA001BA@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Graeme A Lindsell Notes... %% > The second is a speculative one about sorcery. With reference to %% > Burton Choinskis Sorcery with studies system, does anybody have %% > objections to this in principle? There are some problems with it from a %% > practical point of view (its very incompatible with existing sorcery), %% > but I want to know what I liked the basic idea a lot but had problems %% > with the implementation, as I thought that Burtons striving for purity %% > of implementation made it very incompatible, and was inappropriate in %% > other parts. I also thought that it could benefit from being combined %% > with the Paul Reilly Presence system. %% %% I thought his striving for needless compatibility created certain %% flaws. :-) My original idea with it was to be as compatible with the existing Sorcery spells as possible. Going with that assumption forced certain constructions and organizations that were somewhat forced at best and a hack at worst. Given my druthers I would rather rebuild all the sorcery spells from the ground up, first by figuring out a list of what can be manipulated and a list of forms of manipulation. Once those lists were there I would have a level platform to work from. The effects of various combinations might have some RQ3 analogs, most would not. And many combinations would have little use. The tricky part is determining effect for each manipulation. Some manipulations should have a greater "cost" to use, either by decreasing the amount of what can be manipulated or by increased the mana to do so. I can see animate taking more "energy" then "form" since more work must be done. I can see sorcery taking a very logical, consistant use of magical power. Spirit and Divine need not be logical or consistant since heym you are dealing with fickle spirits or gods. :) %% Ditto about Presence, and I believe it has been suggested to Burton. %% The system may have evolved since it was last posted: would Burton like %% to comment? It was interesting, but the "presense" idea seemed too much like having a fetch. I liked the three-way difference in RQ3...the Shaman has his fetch and spirits, the Priest has his/her god and essences of his god (cult spirit spells), and the Sorcerer cuts out the middleman and just does it himself (but must put more work/mana to get the same effect). -- Burton  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA23555; Wed, 1 Sep 93 22:37:47 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA14690; Wed, 1 Sep 93 23:36:58 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 1 Sep 93 23:37:01 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: New addition with annoying questions. Date: Thu, 2 Sep 93 13:35:20 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <906BF1E62B3@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > > > Do people want a repost of Mike & Paul's system (actually a somewhat > updated version from the last, merging with some ideas from the > RQIV Draft) or shall I just send something to 'jacobus'? > > - Paul > Depends on how long it is. You could try uploading it to soda if you think it's too long to send out, but this list puts out 100's of k of text a week anyway. I'd like to see how your ideas have evolved. 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 AA24208; Wed, 1 Sep 93 23:09:25 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA15375; Thu, 2 Sep 93 00:08:27 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 2 Sep 93 0:08:32 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: that ol' RQ Lite thingy again Date: Thu, 2 Sep 93 14:06:45 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <90745752BA1@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Graeme replying to David, lots deleted. > > I think that this could almost not be necesary with a well designed RQ Lite, > just ignore the spells that mean little to you (like Enchanting spells, and > Bless Crops), and you do not need the hit location chart, just use the HP total, > maybe one or two lines of simply calculated stats. > Yes, thats what I meant: the RQLite stuff shouldn't have to be more than one or two lines of extra data with each NPC. > I thought that Ken said that RQ4 was 'in limbo', not dead, and that that it > could well appear in some form, such as a companion. I am personally more > interested in better game systems that just simpler ones, and that was what > I thought the RQ4 effort was about. Agreed. To me RQLite - the base beginners unit - is irrelevant: as a long time player I would want a complete set. There is one part where better = simpler for me, and that's combat. There are many fights that take up most of a playing session for our group, and while that can be fun for a climactic battle, it can be tedious in other fights. > Many games companys live from supplement to supplement, like Steve > Jackson Games, AH and Chaosium are both doing better than that. Glorantha is > definately not about to disappear, and I strongly doubt that RQ is going to > either. The worst that can happen is for AH to not renew their RQ license, and give it back to Chaosium. Speaking of which: how much does/did AH pay for RQ. Does anyone outside the companies know. One thing about AH: have they ever had a successful RPG? Nothing I've seen really seems a huge success. I don't think they have marketed any of their RPG's well: they have performed the Cardinal Mistake - all of their RPG products are shrink-wrapped. I'm quite serious here, if I can't see a new rules system before I buy it, I don't buy it since I don't have that much disposable income. Most other RPGs tend to be published as books (at least the rules are) that prospective buyers can browse though on the store shelves. > > Cheers > > > Dave Cake Same here 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 AA05771; Thu, 2 Sep 93 17:08:21 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA21919; Thu, 2 Sep 93 18:07:14 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 2 Sep 93 18:07:33 EDT From: David Dunham (via RadioMail) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RQ4 Thoughts Rants and Ravings Date: Thu, 02 Sep 1993 15:06:52 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <9194062222D@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) > On the plus side, the complete spirit magic and rune magic systems >are included with some sample cults. A base RQLite could include >both, with a bit more space if we leave out Rune Lords and/or Shamans. I think it's important to leave Rune Lords in the game. Why? Because it's important that the game have a goal. RQ2 was "about" attaining a rune. This is more than just getting more power (tho that's the simple way of looking at it), it's establishing your place in the order of Glorantha. Becoming a Rune Lord was a goal of all of my RQ2 characters (tho none of them ever made it, and only one came anywhere close). >ii) I've introduced a couple of people to non-D&D RPG's, and >I've noticed that most D&D players liked Warhammer Fantasy >Roleplay. It had a nice simple combat system and a character >advancement system that bore some resemblance to character >classes. Another thing that impressed them was that it was a >large book (around 300 pages I think) with a lot of detail >and flash illustration and a good deal of world background. >Come to think of it, FASA's EarthDawn looks a lot like the >base WFRP product. Of course, so did Dangerous Journeys. Warhammer Fantasy has always annoyed me because it seemed like the basic game was split into two sections in the same book (finding character classes seemed something only the GM could do). Obviously, this is a potential problem with RQ-Lite, but that's why the complex optional rules should be in a separate volume, which I think would be less annoying. (They'd also be optional, rather than merely high-level -- having to buy a second book to become a Rune Lord would annoy me more than having to buy a second book to get rules for (say) hit locations or shamans (which are typically NPCs).) >From: davidc@cs.uwa.edu.au (David Cake) >to enjoy participating in the rq4 playtest discussion, you must have >a streak of rules lawyerness I'm here so I don't _have_ to be a rules lawyer.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA29342; Thu, 2 Sep 93 04:14:27 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA19455; Thu, 2 Sep 93 05:13:36 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 2 Sep 93 5:13:39 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RQ Magic Date: Thu, 2 Sep 93 18:56:57 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <90C5BE33A3E@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > > I have a few questions about RQ4 magic to get people talking about > RQ4 again. > The first is about shamanic fetches. The RQ4d2 rules say that a > shamans fetch gets two separate actions, presumably most of the time a I always thought RQ3 fetches were capable of independent action: given the rest of their abilities it seemed natural that they were. After all, they are meant to be an independent part of a shamans mind > . Does anyone have a big problem with this - it seemed like it was put in > almost as an afterthought, and it is a big change, making shamans way more > combat deadly. > The second is a speculative one about sorcery. With reference to > Burton Choinskis Sorcery with studies system, does anybody have objections to > this in principle? There are some problems with it from a practical point of > view (its very incompatible with existing sorcery), but I want to know what This is not a great concern to me: a skill conversion system could be provided. I have a considerable dislike of the 1 spell = 1 skill system as it tends to produce "1 spell charlies" - sorcerers with a few spells and no "real world" justifications for having them, very D&D-like pure damage machines. RQ3 sorcery was very innovative 10 years ago, but is now quite out of date as a magic system (though not as much as the archaic rune magic system). I think that if the effort is made to produce RQ4, an effort should be made to improve on past mistakes, not sacrifice the game to "RQ3 compatibility" > I liked the basic idea a lot but hadproblems with the implementation, as I > thought that Burtons striving for purity of implementation made it very > incompatible, and was inappropriate in other parts. I also thought that it > could benefit from being combined with the Paul Reilly Presence system. I thought his striving for needless compatibility created certain flaws. :-) Ditto about Presence, and I believe it has been suggested to Burton. The system may have evolved since it was last posted: would Burton like to comment? > So I have given some thought to writing my own version with the > emphasis on compatibility with existing rules and the draft version. Will > Go ahead, this list can always use new ideas and/or better implementations of old ones. 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 AA29513; Thu, 2 Sep 93 04:38:18 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA19709; Thu, 2 Sep 93 05:37:27 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 2 Sep 93 5:37:31 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: RQ4 Thoughts, Rants and Ravings Date: Thu, 2 Sep 93 19:35:56 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <90CC1E46628@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Some Thoughts on RQ4 Considering RQLite and the RQ4 basic rules to be the same thing (which they could be) a few thoughts: i) Say the basic book should be around 120 pages softback. It could (but doesn't have to) contain: Character generation. A combat system with a description of combat skills. A full spirit magic system. Non-Combat skills, and skill and stat training. A full description of Rune Magic. Three short cult write-ups (say Orlanth, Kyger Litor and Black Fang) 18 or so pages of short descriptions of monsters. Perhaps a short section on treasure A few appendices with optional rules. Scattered throughout can be some Gloranthan background, mainly about Dragon Pass. Yes, that's the contents of the base RQ2 book. Looking at that book, it has a few problems: the treasure stuff is out of date as part of an RPG, the combat and other skills are separated, the prior experience section is in an appendix, and there is no short adventure, as is the custom these days. On the plus side, the complete spirit magic and rune magic systems are included with some sample cults. A base RQLite could include both, with a bit more space if we leave out Rune Lords and/or Shamans. Most (Gloranthan) characters get their spirit spells from priest's spellteaching, and there are few RQ3 PC shamans: I believe shamans can be left until "Magic of Glorantha" (sorcerers as well). Rune Lords are a bit different - there are a lot of PC Rune Lords - but GoG ended up reducing the total number of cults with Lords by quite a bit. Most of those that do only have rune lords (ie Humakt, Chalana Arroy), and can be given as priests of cults with different entry requirements. This would allow players to play characters from the most common backgrounds (civilized and barbarian) from the basic book and to see the direction the character needs for cult advancement. The combat is hardly sophisticated: it allows most of the basic actions but not most of the special options of RQ3. I brought up the RQ2 book because it was the most successful implementation of RQ. Greg Stafford would probably say we're living in the past. ii) I've introduced a couple of people to non-D&D RPG's, and I've noticed that most D&D players liked Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay. It had a nice simple combat system and a character advancement system that bore some resemblance to character classes. Another thing that impressed them was that it was a large book (around 300 pages I think) with a lot of detail and flash illustration and a good deal of world background. Come to think of it, FASA's EarthDawn looks a lot like the base WFRP product. Of course, so did Dangerous Journeys. What I'd like RQ4 (and RQLite) to be: Looking at WFRP, which was pretty successful before GW decided to pull out of all non-minatures games, I don't think new players are put off by large books. It gives a feeling that you are buying something substantial. I'd like to see RQ4 produced in the same format, as I think was planned. I think the "programmed instruction" idea could be used for the starting player as someone suggested: the book could have an initial short adventure with the sections needed for that adventure (the RQLite sections?) marked with a separate backgound colour. The Lite/starter sections would be Quick Character Creation, Quick Combat and Spirit Magic - sections that more experienced GM's might want to use themselves if they like Liter rules. The rest of the book would have the entirety of the RQ4 project, with all of the optional rules and all the sorcery rules as well, and finishing with a chunk of Gloranthan background. Well, that's what I'd like to see. I hope I don't need to use hallucinogenic drugs to do it. Air gets a bit thin up on this soapbox... 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 AA19512; Fri, 3 Sep 93 00:16:44 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA00641; Fri, 3 Sep 93 01:15:49 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 3 Sep 93 1:15:57 EDT From: Michael W Ryan To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: RQ4 Query Date: Fri, 3 Sep 93 0:16:41 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <92065BB5559@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Alot of what's being said here sounds interesting, but unfortunately, being new to the list, I sort of get lost in some of the references. Does the RQ4 material exist somewhere on an FTPable archive site? If so, can someone supply me with the address and path? I'd really like to take a look at it. Someone mentioned (I deleted the article already, and don't remember the person's name) that they considered the rune spells in RQ2&3 to be "archaic". Could you possibly expand on that a bit? Are you referring to the mechanics of the spells or the spells themselves? I'll stop here until I get a bit more caught up on what's going on here. +=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+ | Michael W. Ryan | If the dream is big enough, -- John Antony, | | mryan@pacs.pha.pa.us | the facts don't matter. Entrepreneur | +=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA25196; Fri, 3 Sep 93 04:22:25 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA03650; Fri, 3 Sep 93 05:21:24 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 3 Sep 93 5:21:37 EDT From: Mystic Musk Ox To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Improve() + Bargain Date: Fri, 3 Sep 93 10:13 BST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <9247E551B14@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Roderick Robertson: > I'd say that Improve(Skill) generally adds 15% to the skill, with >some exceptions: Bladesharp takes 10% and turns it into 1 point of >damage, Healsharp turns 10% into one point of Damage healed, >Parrysharp might take that 10% and turn it into two points of Armor >(only on the parrying weapon), etc. This could also open the way for >Improve Attack, which adds 15% to your attack skill, but no extra >damage. Also remember the reverse spells, like Dullblade, which >Subtract from the target's skill. Howabout Dullheal, which makes an >opponent's Medic more likely to blow his roll? I'm not keen on the idea of 15% increases across the board - after all, this makes a 6 point spell add 90% to a skill. Perhaps a skill cannot be more than doubled by use of these spells, if 15% is the multiple? >(NB. I used -Sharp and Dull- only to suggest similarities in how the >spell works. I think most of the spells above are named horribly, and >do not suggest that those be the real names). Agreed! > What about non-physical skills? would there be Improve (Read >Lunar)? Improve (World Lore)? Yes, I was assuming Lores would improve, due to the spells acting like a 'limited divination' , or in contact with cult spirits. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Combat Matrix - I was recently playing around with WORD on my PC, and ran up what I think is a fairly neat combat matrix, ie it cross-indexes attack levels with parry levels and gives the info about what damage is done, weapons damage etc (using the RQ4 crit/specials). Does anyone else want it? (Its in PostScript, about 30K worth). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Bargain Skill. My campaign is about to move into a largeish city that is basically a trading centre. I was reading through the Bargain description, but basically felt unhappy with it, mostly because it doesn't take into account the fact that the other guy might have Bargain skill too... So, after a bit of fiddling about, we came up with a simple suggestion for all those useful cases where points are being argued etc... You need: A track of 11 boxes in a row, 2 counters. Bargain: Both parties decide on their initial price (presumably high for seller, low for buyer). This has to be somewhere reasonable, else no-one would be trading in the first place, although could be modified by scarcity, desperateness of buyer etc, etc. Take the difference, divide by 10, allocate low price to one end, high to the other, increments of 1/10th in between. Counters start at each end, one for each bargainer. Both roll their skill, effect is: Critical: move opponents counter 3 spaces towards your end Special: move opponents counter 2 spaces Normal: move opponents counter 1 space Fail: no move Fumble: move your counter 1 space towards the opponent Thus a counter could move 4 spaces in 1 round (Critical + Fumble) When the counters end up in the same space, that is the agreed price. If the counters cross, the price is determined by ratios of move. (we originally tried 'attack' and 'parry' rolls, but figured that this didn't really add anything extra, except a lot of dice rolls) Orate,Debate: Allocate a result to either end of the track. Counter starts in the centre box. Orator rolls skill, moves counter as above (3,2,1,0 or -1 spaces) to desired end of track. opponents roll, they move as desired. When the counter reaches the end of a track, end of debate. Skilled opposing Orators may go on for a long time! Give an amount of time eg 5 mins, 1 hour etc to each pair of rolls. Modifiers: to skill, start position of counter etc. Optional: For multiple Orators, use a hex grid, and a hexagonal board. Corners are chosen by the orators etc, with a counter starting in the centre (or offset to represent initial prejudice). Each contestant rolling may move the counter. Once counter enters a contestants corner, the argument has been won by that faction.(I haven't tried this version yet) --------------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Buckley ---------------------------------------------------------------------  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA26681; Fri, 3 Sep 93 05:10:48 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA03668; Fri, 3 Sep 93 05:23:08 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 3 Sep 93 5:23:22 EDT From: Malcolm Cohen To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Some RQ Lite ideas Date: Fri, 3 Sep 93 10:22:17 MET Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <924856A47D9@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Joerg writes: > Well, the way I see it there is a problem that demands one success > level higher than usual. Some guy take it as routine nevertheless, some That is one approach, not necessarily the correct one. [...] > The problem with this philosophy is that RQ know only [...] > where I'd like to see [huge table...] > Yes, that means even more calculation, or looking up in a table for REACTION: --------- Ugh. I do not think this solves the problem at all, and is too complicated. Including both additive steps and multiplicative steps is neither simple nor elegant. Why does it not solve the problem? Because many modifiers to skill usage are small (e.g. hit with missile when target is moving, -10%), if we make the steps in the table small enough to handle all of these it will be a big complicated table ("I got a partial-semi-special success, do I hit it?" "No, it got a super-normal dodge, so it is only a glancing blow"). DISCUSSION: ----------- Currently we have two kinds of skill modification: (a) multipliers (e.g. for using bow at long range) (b) additive/subtractive (e.g. striking from high ground). Both of these approaches would seem to have good real-world analogues. (e.g. for a 20% bow user, a moving target probably would halve their hit chance, whereas for an experienced bow user, say 90%, it only doubles their chance of missing). Currently, for modifiers which are not listed in the rules, the GM decides which type to use (they are making up the value after all, they can make up how to apply it as well). Whichever of these is used, we need to have a way of deciding (perhaps after a set number of tries) that the problem is "too hard" for the user at this time. WTP: ---- If the perceived problem is that it is too "complicated" to have 2 different styles of modifier, I am in favour of keeping the additive ones. Why? (a) compatibility with RQ3 (the attack modifiers are the most visible ones, and they are additive. (b) finer-grained adjustment is possible (+10 vs +20 vs +30, etc.). (c) addition is simpler than multiplication by the numbers needed to get reasonable modifiers (e.g. x1.25, x1.5, x1.75, x0.75) (d) AD&D folk understand about adding ("+1 to hit"...ok, only joking). ROLLING FUMBLES and CRITICALS: ------------------------------ The easy way of doing away with the table for <=100% skills (and the method I used way back in RQ1!) is to say roll 01-05 success + roll again, second roll succeeds => success is critical 96-00 fail + roll again, second roll fails => fumble Of course in RQ1 there were no specials (except for impales...) so a reroll was only necessary 1 roll in 10 for everything except spear (et al) attack, for which reroll 1 in 4. Since most RQ combats are over in 10 rounds, each player need only reroll (have a chance of a crit or fumble) twice (one attack, one parry) in the whole melee. Even for impalers, the rerolls in a 12 round melee are only 3 attack and 1 parry. (Those who say that RQ combats take all evening can refrain from saying this is too much right now - I mean hey, each player only makes 1 extra die roll per hour). Perhaps this is not "faster" than using a table, but it certainly requires less mental effort than (subtracting one (?) and multiplying by 20). It also has no rounding error at all, in fact no rounding - if you have a skill of 30% you get a critical chance of 1.5%, not 1% (crit chance for 29%) and not 2% (crit chance for 30%). Eliminates the breakpoint effect. Admittedly this method is less attractive in RQ3 (or in RQ2 if the optional slash et al rules are used) since special success mostly means something. Actually, when I run combats (in RQ3+) the skill result table is right in front of me so it is not exactly difficult to look up the occasional result for specialness/etc. In fact I see this as a big non-problem. -- ...........................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 AA10080; Thu, 2 Sep 93 19:44:28 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25842; Thu, 2 Sep 93 20:43:35 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 2 Sep 93 20:43:42 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RQ4 Thoughts Rants and Ravings Date: Fri, 3 Sep 93 10:41:39 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <91BDBE878D6@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > > I think it's important to leave Rune Lords in the game. Why? Because it's > important that the game have a goal. RQ2 was "about" attaining a rune. This > is more than just getting more power (tho that's the simple way of looking > at it), it's establishing your place in the order of Glorantha. Becoming a > Rune Lord was a goal of all of my RQ2 characters (tho none of them ever > made it, and only one came anywhere close). That's what RQ2 was about, I agree. Now there are a lot of cults that don't have Rune Lord status, and most of those that do have priest powers as well (ie re-usable rune magic). > > Warhammer Fantasy has always annoyed me because it seemed like the basic > game was split into two sections in the same book (finding character > classes seemed something only the GM could do). Obviously, this is a > potential problem with RQ-Lite, but that's why the complex optional rules > should be in a separate volume, which I think would be less annoying. > (They'd also be optional, rather than merely high-level -- having to buy a > second book to become a Rune Lord would annoy me more than having to buy a > second book to get rules for (say) hit locations or shamans (which are > typically NPCs).) I have separate RQ Lite and RQ Advanced right now: I have the Games Workshop edition of RQIII in hardback books, one is the Standard Edition and the other is rest of the deluxe edition. As a result, the combat system is broken up between two books and I need to look between both of them to find something. Even with its multiple typos and weird division of character creation WFRP is superior in layout and utility. If RQLite and RQ advanced are divided either people would need to switch between books or material would be repeated in both books. There is also economies of scale in producing one single large volume rather than two separate books. 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 AA15760; Thu, 2 Sep 93 22:00:03 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA28468; Thu, 2 Sep 93 22:59:11 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 2 Sep 93 22:59:18 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: SORCERY Date: Fri, 3 Sep 93 12:57:11 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <91E1EA56E21@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Burton writes: > Given my druthers I would rather rebuild all the sorcery spells from the > ground up, first by figuring out a list of what can be manipulated > and a list of forms of manipulation. Once those lists were there I would > have a level platform to work from. The effects of various combinations > might have some RQ3 analogs, most would not. And many combinations would > have little use. I like that approach (obvious from my previous posts). I've always thought the RQ3 sorcery spell lists looked a little like a hack job. Only a few spells seem to have had real thought put into them. > I can see animate taking more "energy" then "form" since more work must > be done. I can see sorcery taking a very logical, consistant use of > magical power. Spirit and Divine need not be logical or consistant since > heym you are dealing with fickle spirits or gods. :) A bit more consistency would be good there as well (the Improve (skill) spell is an effort in that direction). In some ways the "new cult in every pack" was a bit like AD&D's "new monster in every module", and had the same effect. > > %% Ditto about Presence, and I believe it has been suggested to Burton. > %% The system may have evolved since it was last posted: would Burton like > %% to comment? > > It was interesting, but the "presense" idea seemed too much like having a > fetch. I liked the three-way difference in RQ3...the Shaman has his > fetch and spirits, the Priest has his/her god and essences of his god > (cult spirit spells), and the Sorcerer cuts out the middleman and just does > it himself (but must put more work/mana to get the same effect). > -- Burton > IMO there are two advantages to the presence/twin concept. One is the gameplay one: the sorcerer doesn't have to keep track of the durations of a number of spells, he just turns them off when not needed. I've always liked the idea of long duration spells, and the presence idea removes the most abusive aspects. The other advantage is the conceptual one, which you seem to dislike. This is a matter of taste I suppose, but I like the idea of unifying the magic users: they each expand their spirit/pow beyond the limits of the normal human soul, but with limitations. The shaman goes the "natural way" but ends up a bit insane and needs the support of others to survive; the priestess uses a god to control her twin but thereby loses control over it and can only contact it through worship; the sorcerer binds it to himself and has the most power over it but then needs to have the knowledge to control it. (this also has the bonus of controlling abuses such as sorcerer-shamans which munchkins adore but makes it difficult to explain priest-shamans). 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 AA21653; Fri, 3 Sep 93 14:51:04 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA28097; Fri, 3 Sep 93 15:49:48 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 3 Sep 93 15:50:10 EDT From: David Dunham (via RadioMail) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Rune Lords; GW's RQ-Heavy; Sorcery Date: Fri, 03 Sep 1993 12:49:25 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <92EF6EB7E6C@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) >> I think it's important to leave Rune Lords in the game. Why? Because it's >> important that the game have a goal. RQ2 was "about" attaining a rune. > That's what RQ2 was about, I agree. Now there are a lot of cults that >don't have Rune Lord status, and most of those that do have priest powers >as well (ie re-usable rune magic). Sorry for the confusion. The goal is obtaining a rune. RQ2 had two ways to do this, and both are equally important (Rune Lord perhaps more so, since becoming a Priest tends to give non-adventuring responsibilities). Unlike sorcerers or shamans, the rules for Rune Lords are quite short, and you wouldn't gain much by summarizing them instead. > I have separate RQ Lite and RQ Advanced right now: I have the Games >Workshop edition of RQIII in hardback books, one is the Standard Edition >and the other is rest of the deluxe edition. As a result, the combat >system is broken up between two books and I need to look between both of >them to find something. Even with its multiple typos and weird division >of character creation WFRP is superior in layout and utility. If RQLite >and RQ advanced are divided either people would need to switch between >books or material would be repeated in both books. There is also >economies of scale in producing one single large volume rather than >two separate books. Ah, I'd forgotten the GW version. I only have "Advanced RuneQuest," but judging from what's in there, you have a point. I do believe that if the product had been intended to be split, they could have done a better job. And in this case, it looks like a GM truly can't run RQ without ARQ. > Graeme Lindsell a.k.a gal502@huxley.anu.edu.au > IMO there are two advantages to the presence/twin concept. One is the >gameplay one: the sorcerer doesn't have to keep track of the durations >of a number of spells, he just turns them off when not needed. I've >always liked the idea of long duration spells, and the presence idea >removes the most abusive aspects. This sounds interesting -- these rules I must have missed by joining late? Can the author email them? >From: Mystic Musk Ox >Bargain Skill. >[counter-based rules] This looks quite reasonable, albeit slow. It looks like the perfect sort of thing for a Rules Companion -- RQ-Lite would have the standard Bargain, then you'd offer more detail for those that need it. And the system could conceivably be used for other contests, not just Bargain or Orate (e.g. running, swimming, etc.). >From: Malcolm Cohen >[multiplicative vs additive modifiers] >If the perceived problem is that it is too "complicated" to have 2 different >styles of modifier, I am in favour of keeping the additive ones. I agree -- it's much faster for most people to add than to multiply.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA21014; Fri, 3 Sep 93 01:20:09 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01508; Fri, 3 Sep 93 02:19:16 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 3 Sep 93 2:19:23 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RQ4 Query Date: Fri, 3 Sep 93 16:17:13 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <921748353B3@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > Michael Ryan writes: > Someone mentioned (I deleted the article already, and don't remember > the person's name) that they considered the rune spells in RQ2&3 to be > "archaic". Could you possibly expand on that a bit? Are you referring > to the mechanics of the spells or the spells themselves? I was referring to the mechanics of recovering rune magic: going bock to the temple and praying for 1 day per spell. It's very much like going down into the dungeon and casting all your spells and then going out to you magic book and learning all your spells and then going down into the dungeon... ie Archaic = AD&D. The actual spells themselves are usually OK. My other main bitch about rune magic is how initiates are treated: I think one-use rune magic is a joke. (Everyone else has heard this opinion many times by now but your new to the list) "River of Cradles" has an interesting twist on rune magic: to regain the rune spells in their matrices the PC's have to attend one (1) sucessfull worship ceremony for their god. My GM and I think this is a better method for regaining spells. We also posted a proposal here a few months ago suggesting that initiates could regain their rune magic at the worship ceremony on the yearly high holy day of their god, when their contact with said god would be at its closest. 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 AA06720; Fri, 3 Sep 93 23:05:16 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA10037; Sat, 4 Sep 93 00:04:21 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 4 Sep 93 0:04:28 EDT From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Game "generations" and mindless meandering Date: Fri, 3 Sep 93 23:04:10 -0500 Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <9373642691E@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu> Okay, Dave mentioned the threat of RuneQuest being left behind by "higher generation" games (and his disbelief in this). That has got me thinking about this "generation" nonsense when applied to role-playing games, and how to integrate it, if it really exists, into RQ. My ideas: Generation 1: The beginning. Games which are basically addenda to wargames. Idiotype: Original D&D Generation 2: Codification. Role-playing games leave the wargaming milieu although they keep some of the trappings. All effort in the game is spent simply defining how to play a single character and put that character into a "campaign" (a holdover term from wargaming). Idiotypes: AD&D, RuneQuest 1 Generation 3: Speciation. Games appear in which some consideration is given to the milieu being played--more consideration than merely cosmetic. Some attempt is made to bend rules around a setting, although the reverse is still more often the case. Idiotypes: The Fantasy Trip, RuneQuest 2 Generation 4: Second Codification. Perhaps as a reaction against the shoddy quality of systems which flooded the market (this does NOT include RQ2), perhaps as a reaction to what was seen at the time as the limitations inherent in setting-dependent game systems, perhaps both and more, people design systems which are intended to be usable in a variety of settings and styles. Two divergent methods are used, explicit and implicit. Idiotypes: Implicit: Hero Games rules before 1990, Chaosium products Explicit: GURPS, Hero Games rules after 1990 Generation 5: Second Speciation. Games appear which once again exploit the advantages to be seen in allowing rules to flow around a setting or idea instead of the other way around. What distinguishes this speciation from the former is that it is more conscious and generally more sophisticated. Idiotypes: Ars Magica, Shadowrun, Pendragon Generation 6: Radical Speciation. The relative security of a gaming public, when compared to previous decades, permits experimentation on a scale never before seen. Some games enter a radical version of the Generation 5 developments. Some deconstruct basic concepts of role-playing settings or mechanics. Those games which dare to take risks in design and implementation make big strides (but still do not unseat established Generation 2 or 4 giants for some reason). Idiotypes: Radical Speciation: Pendragon 4th edition Setting Deconstruction: Vampire, Underground Mechanics Deconstruction: Amber RPG, Underground Anyway, why am I doing all of this? To be blunt, some case can be made for RuneQuest, and the ideas behind it, to be on the creaking, wheezing, and time-worn side. Even the draft for the fourth edition feels this way. What creaks about it? The character generation system still feels old. It is an improvement over previous methods, but it is still to ass-backwards. What do I mean by this? See the end of the letter** Anyway, what suggestions for RQ do I want to derive from the above? Don't be afraid to question assumptions and take risks with the game. One of the reasons that Greg Stafford dropped direct involvement with RQ is the irrational knee-jerk conservativism of a vocal group of RQ players (or so I have heard)--he got tired of "rules lawyers". Every seriously successful RPG currently out has an informal, fast-and-loose approach to the rules. RQ has just the opposite, even sliding into stuffy. What is it about Prince of Sartar that sells that RQ doesn't have? **Ass-backwards. Okay, here is where I delve into what I have been meandering around for the whole letter. What role-playing games have been dancing around for the longest time and never consciously delving into is something I do every working day. Modelling. There are two ways to make a model. First, you can build a set of mechanics and then try to hammer them into shape to give you results that vaguely resemble what you are trying to model. Second, you can delve into your modelled object and try to understand it, then design the model around TWO constraints: What you know about the modelled object, AND WHAT YOU WANT THE MODEL TO DEMONSTRATE!!!! Am I coming in clear, here? Let's take a look at the RQIV draft character generation system, for example. This is more of the first school of modelling, where we have a mechanic (which may be wonderful--in general) and then hammer all of the people of a world into it. However, the result is, by and large, rather bland and is could be typical of any number of RPGs out on the market. What RQ generation needs is a method that is simple, elegant, and gives a RuneQuest distinct flavor to the character from the outset. Vampire does this to a great extent. The first and last things you do are related directly to the setting and/or how you will have to initially interact with that setting. What, then, could be done for RQ character generation to give it this unique feel? To answer this we must answer some questions: Is RQ wedded to a particular setting? How flexible do we want this for a player--and in what directions? I would answer the first question as "yes" (sorry, Loren, but that's where the support lies). The second I will dodge. Allow me to propose the following method, if people like it, I may partially rewrite the second draft character generation and post it. The following is just an outline, no real mechanics are proposed. 1: Choose species. The GM may restrict this if he wants. 2: Determine basic culture. This should NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT be random. Furthermore, this "primitive", "nomad", "barbarian", "civilized" shit has GOT to go! Let us assume a setting near the River of Cradles, which could be included in an RQGlorantha and other settings be released separately. Human cultures would then be: Sartaric Orlanthi Praxian Nomad Lunar River Folk Pavisite (rates a separate entry since it is the only real urban point) maybe a few others, I don't know. Anyway, each culture would bestow some sort of unique skill or gift and would present a certain worldview. This might not be as extreme as the "clans" in Vampire, but something along those line. 3: Determine Religious Affiliation. This EXTREMELY important aspect of Glorantha gets virtually overlooked in the draft rules. (at least by my standards) This would be partially dictated by culture, of course. A brief overview of the religions would be a VERY good idea here. Stress the role-playing and cultural aspects OVER the mechanics, present mechanics later. 4: Roll Attributes, hand out background points, and determine previous professions. This section could use some serious reorganization. 5: Determine spells, equipment, religious goodies, etc. Anyway, the above are just some ideas.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA06899; Fri, 3 Sep 93 23:17:27 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA10236; Sat, 4 Sep 93 00:16:37 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 4 Sep 93 0:16:40 EDT From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RQ Magic Date: Fri, 3 Sep 93 23:16:10 -0500 Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <93769A81483@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu> Time to throw in my incomprehensible perspective on this: Nearly all role-playing games have been designed completely backwards of how they should be made. What I mean is that the designers tend to jump straight into game mechanics before they have a firm idea of what the hell they're modelling with these mechanics in the first place. I would say that all of the problems with Sorcery in RuneQuest stem from this. It definitely feels like a mechanics-first approach, I am damned sure that the mechanics-first approach is dominating (wrongly) in attempts to revise it. The best way to handle ALL magic-related stuff in RQ is to examine and firm up the source material. This means that designers need to understand what sorcery is and is not WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE WORLD, in this case, Glorantha. They can then devise rules to MODEL these concepts, not the other way around. I would like to see this.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA08819; Sat, 4 Sep 93 02:20:44 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA12202; Sat, 4 Sep 93 03:19:53 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 4 Sep 93 3:19:57 EDT From: jjm@zycor.lgc.com (johnjmedway) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: RQLite: partial armor Date: Sat, 4 Sep 93 2:18:54 CDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <93A77950C49@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu> >> From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) >> Subject: Re: RQ4 Lite backlash! >> Date: Tue, 31 Aug 93 23:12:01 EDT >> >> Joerg writes: >> >(Of course the effect of partly covering armour like that of Lunar or >> >Spartan hoplites remains difficult to determine, it's an all-or-nothing >> >approach, much like sorcerous Damage Resistance.) >> >> I don't think of it this way. Instead, I see partial armor on the legs >> providing some armor points for the whole leg. Well designed armor protects >> best those areas which are most vulnerable. Consider the evolution from Partial armor can provide "full" protection, partial or none, depending on how the hit came in. I had suggested what would probably qualify as a RQLite idea for this a while back: AP = roll a die where ( maximum value of die = maximum value for full coverage ). Hence is Bronze Plate is 8 pts., a Bronze Greave ( true greave = knee * lower leg only ) has an AP of d8. The average is more than 1/2, reflecting that the more important areas were armored first, and the extremes _approximate_ no coverage and full coverage. I had no takers on this idea before, but that was during an RQHeavy discussion. This may be more appropriate for RQLite/whatever, and is less of a hassle than treating it like a Damage Resistance roll, ad per Joerg. It's also easily added to full armor by simply adding the other armor points to the roll. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 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 AA13553; Sat, 4 Sep 93 11:13:17 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA20087; Sat, 4 Sep 93 11:29:21 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 4 Sep 93 11:29:34 EDT From: "Loren J. Miller" To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RQ Magic Date: 04 Sep 1993 11:30:28 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <942A0A849AC@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu> Believe it or not I'm completely in agreement with Bryan on both his points, first that RQ character generation needs to be tied into the mileau (uh oh, Gygaxism alert) rather than being bland and generic, and second that we don't currently understand how sorcery works in glorantha and for that reason we shouldn't be expected to be able to get a good set of rules for it. Certainly the sorcery rules do NOT even come close to modeling the practices of western tradition magicians on earth. In fact, the shaman rules are a much better fit to every known human theory of how magic works (don't hassle me over whether magic works or not. that's beside the point) than either divine magic or sorcery. The tough question is, how can we understand what sorcery is on glorantha? Are there stories that can show us how it works, and whether sorcerors have guardian angels and the like, either old ones that Greg wrote that haven't been seen by the vast majority of RQists and Gloranthaphiles, or new ones that he would write to help us conquer the stranglehold that the rules have on the feel of magic in glorantha? Anybody know? -- Loren  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA14305; Sat, 4 Sep 93 12:10:21 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA21275; Sat, 4 Sep 93 13:08:18 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 4 Sep 93 13:08:21 EDT From: David Dunham (via RadioMail) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Game "generations" and mindless meandering Date: Sat, 04 Sep 1993 10:07:54 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <94446A35BF3@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu> >From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu (I won't comment on the generations, it's irrelevant.) >What role-playing games have been dancing around >for the longest time and never consciously delving into is something I do every >working day. Modelling. There are two ways to make a model. First, you can >build a set of mechanics and then try to hammer them into shape to give you >results that vaguely resemble what you are trying to model. Second, you can >delve into your modelled object and try to understand it, then design the >model around TWO constraints: What you know about the modelled object, AND >WHAT YOU WANT THE MODEL TO DEMONSTRATE!!!! A good point. One problem is that the world of Glorantha is 1) largely known through the model; 2) has been changing as Greg writes. >Furthermore, this "primitive", "nomad", "barbarian", > "civilized" shit has GOT to go! Here I disagree -- one of RQ3's best features was the ability to put a handle on cultures. (I plan on writing more in the main Digest.) I do agree if you mean people saying, "I choose to be Civilized, gee, I guess that makes me Lunar." >Anyway, each culture would bestow some sort of unique skill or gift and would >present a certain worldview. They already do the latter (if you have the player book from Glorantha). The former makes sense, too. >3: Determine Religious Affiliation. This EXTREMELY important aspect of > Glorantha gets virtually overlooked in the draft rules. (at least by > my standards) It's touched on, but you're right, not strongly enough. So how can the maze of Gloranthan cults be presented for beginners? There's a lot to learn (one reason I favor simpler rules). David Dunham * Software Designer * Pensee Corporation Voice/Fax: 206-783-7404 * AppleLink: DDUNHAM * Internet: ddunham@radiomail.net  0, forwarded,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA16023; Sat, 4 Sep 93 14:36:02 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA23217; Sat, 4 Sep 93 15:33:58 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 4 Sep 93 15:34:03 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RQ Magic Date: Sat, 4 Sep 93 15:33:21 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <946B4444D8C@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu> >we don't currently understand how sorcery works in >glorantha and for that reason we shouldn't be expected to be able to >get a good set of rules for it This is the biggest problem in writing rules for Glorantha. Sorcery is an obvious case in point but there are many others. I try to adapt from Earth models and fit into the Gloranthan 'gestalt'. I think of meta-rules that cover as many Gloranthan cases as possible and then try to puzzle out particular cases. It's rather like what those imaginative painters working under Arthur Evans did when 'restoring' the Knossos frescoes from a few fragments.... >The tough question is, how can we understand what sorcery is on glorantha? Excellent paragraph follows, expresses many of my own frustrations. - Paul Reilly  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA26487; Sun, 5 Sep 93 02:51:26 -0500 Return-Path: <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA02695; Sun, 5 Sep 93 03:49:22 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 5 Sep 93 3:49:24 EDT From: Nick Brooke <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Knights, Priests, and Sorcerers in Glorantha Date: 05 Sep 93 03:45:50 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <952F68E6C37@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu> This is an old article by Greg Stafford taken from a very early RuneQuest source: the fanzine "Son of Sartar". Please take copyright acknowledgements etc. as read. I think this might be useful for hunting out the Gloranthan 'flavour' of Sorcery-using societies, though the mechanical aspects of this system were of course known and discarded in the genesis of RQ3 Sorcery. _____________________________ >From Son of Sartar #3 (1979): KNIGHTS, PRIESTS, AND SORCERERS IN GLORANTHA by Greg Stafford Several developments have motivated me to publish this unfinished magic system for RuneQuest. It is a major part of a development of Gloranthan magic being mastered in a Fronelan campaign run by Charlie Krank. THE WRITTEN SOURCES When I began writing stories and encyclopaedias about Glorantha way back in '66 the setting was very mediaeval. That was my primary source for fantasy, after all, and I hadnt a great deal of exposure to other sources or to life in general. Those first stories took place beginning Year 2 in the Kingdom of Frowal, which later became the Kingdom of Seshnela after the first book. From there the time and space of Glorantha have grown immensely into the world we now know. But Seshnela has never left Glorantha! There has always been a "mediaeval" area of Glorantha which dominated the Western lands. Their entire mythology and magic were also different. However, I was not interested in portraying that at the time of RuneQuests publishing, hence they have had little development. Of late, however, other local referees have been setting up areas of the continent which include the West. Charlie Krank, a very ambitious fellow, has undertaken (among other things) the Kingdom of Loskalm in Fronela, the last major hold-out of the unsullied civilisation from that Dawn Age Seshnela. This write-up contains some of the more important notes we have constructed for such a social system. It may appear familiar as character classes, but ought to put new meaning to those words when the entire structure is completed. Of necessity this will abbreviate almost everything except notes on the Sorcerers, Ceremonial Magic, and Demonology. THE CULTS OF SESHNELA Before Seshnela broke away from its parent civilisation it was part of the Brithini. The Brithini were a powerful human race from before the darkness. Their Founder was named MALKION and they are sometimes called the Malkioni. Malkion had four sons and one daughter by the goddess Britha, an earth deity. Each of the sons got one of their fathers Great Gifts when he went from the earth. The gifts made them King, Wizard, Warrior, and Farmer. (The wizard was ZZABUR, hence the cult is sometimes called the Cult of Zzabur instead of sorcerers. A very theistic way of viewing it, though). The Kingdom of Frowal was originally part of the Brithini lands. But after Time began, the kings son, HRESTOL, took upon himself a bold quest wherein he was guided by his Founder and found the means to attain the ends he sought. He broke all social bounds when he returned and began the class of KNIGHTS. The Knights of early Seshnela were an idealistic bunch of goodbodies who combined all of the best possible attributes with a proud and non-oppressive moral code. Over the years the strength and aims of the knighthood has changed, but the institution still remains. The Brithini conceived a deep and passionate hatred for Hrestol and the Seshnegi. Zzabur was the most feared of their race and from this stemmed a distrust between knights of Hrestol and wizards of Zzabur. There were also, at this time, priestly cults of elements (five of them) and also the cult of Malkion, which was a religious adjunct to the knights and also a national cult for the Seshnegi. (Malkion had mystical connections which the God Learners of the Second Age connected with Flesh Man of the Lightbringers.) In the Second Age the cult of Arkat Chaos-killer formed a peace between wizards and sorcerers which is common in many places, but is generally not acceptable to true and pure Hrestoli. (By the way, the True and Pure group gets extra strengths for being so.) Final notes: Sir Ethilrist is a worshipper of some form of Hrestol. Also, the Carmanian Empire which the Red Goddess crushed worshipped him. Seshnela was destroyed by Zzabur at the end of the Second Age. METHODS OF WIZARDRY There are three general methods of Sorcery. To make it fit within a conception of the previously presented theistic form of Gloranthan worship it is useful to envision the individual human being as the deity which is worshipped or invoked to perform. This fits in perfectly well with Gloranthan mythology and cosmology wherein people are all descendants of Grandfather Mortal who was created with bits of all of the deities in the cosmos, therefore being a microcosm of the universe himself. The three methods are: 1. GENERAL SORCERY - In this manner a wizard may attempt to cast a spell using his own innate skills at that particular magic. 2. CEREMONIAL MAGIC - In this a magician is able to reproduce a magical act by use of sympathetic magic and other skills. It requires props and time. 3. DEMONOLOGY - This is summoning a spirit or demon or god and engaging it in spirit combat to force it to teach magic to the individual. GENERAL SORCERY This is a Knowledge skill which must be learned for at least 25% before it can be used alone. It costs 1200/2400/4800/9600 to learn to Initiates in the cult. It is not taught to anyone else. This means a person must spend at least 15 weeks in solid study before they could know 25%. Most Initiates get the training for free from their masters but in much longer time. You go up by study only. General Sorcery will give the character a specific ability to cast any spell which they can know with that skill level and which they know or can read. It requires at least 25% ability (Sorcery and/or ceremonial) to cast and learn all 1-point Rune spells, 50% for all 2-point, and 75% for all 3-point. The spells may be learned from a demon, from a teacher (costs for a spell will vary according to the teacher, no guidelines yet), or from a book or other grimoire. To cast it successfully the mage must make his percentage roll on D100. He can try often if he does not use it, or may use it once per week. An example of casting a spell would be for a character to make his Read Other Language roll to get it right, then throw the D100. If a character is successful in casting a spell then he has a chance of going up in its ability, just as with any skill. This is by individual spells, though. However, if a character studies and goes up in General Sorcery as well then they will also go up in spells already known. Knowing a spell over 100% means that it may be used twice per day. Over 200% it can be used three times. Learning the spell by studying a book will have risks. It may end up costing more than 1 point of POW to learn it if a bad roll is made. I don't have a chart on this yet, but it ought to be easy to construct. We will also need to draw up a decent Spell Fumble Table. CEREMONIAL MAGIC Ceremonial Magic can be used to cast a spell or to bolster one cast by Sorcery. It can be learned at the costs of 600/1200/2400/4800. It is a Knowledge skill. If a character knows Ceremonial Magic at 25% they can cast any one-point Rune spell, 50% can cast two-point, and 75% can cast three-point. An important function of the ceremony is the time it takes. In game terms each 5% of Ceremonial magic used requires 1 hour of time. Thus if you want to cast a Discorporation it takes 5 hours of preparation. If you want to extend it with Extension 1 it will require another 5 hours of preparation. Ceremonial magic can be used in conjunction with Basic Sorcery. One can be used to augment the other. For instance, if you know Ceremonial Magic at 15% and you also know Shield 2 at 50% then you could spend three hours before a battle then have a 65% chance of accomplishing the spell. DEMONOLOGY This is essentially a way of learning magic without books or reading rolls. A summons must be made (takes magic, probably) and then the thing which comes must be fought in spirit combat. Driving it down to 0 inside the pentagram will cause it to teach any one spell which it knows. This will take on some more meaning and flesh (ha ha) when I draw up a different list of spirits and how to determine if they know magic. There is, though, a demonic hierarchy in Glorantha as well. Im just not sure what/how it is. There is not quite the same dualism in Glorantha as the Christian theology on Earth. Such, anyway, is the outline for it. We have begun mostly concentrating on some simple elemental priesthoods first anyway and only begun testing this system. Comments and criticisms are sought.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA22873; Sat, 4 Sep 93 22:23:40 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA29718; Sat, 4 Sep 93 23:21:28 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 4 Sep 93 23:21:40 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RQ Magic Date: Sun, 5 Sep 93 13:19:42 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <94E7FD3045C@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu> Graeme here replying to Loren replying to Bryan... > Believe it or not I'm completely in agreement with Bryan on both his > points, first that RQ character generation needs to be tied into the > mileau (uh oh, Gygaxism alert) rather than being bland and generic, I agree with Bryan as well but I understand that Oliver has made quite a few changes to the RQ4 Draft 2.0 character creation rules, so it might be better to wait for a new draft if and when it arises so we can see how things have progressed. > on earth. In fact, the shaman rules are a much better fit to every known > human theory of how magic works (don't hassle me over whether magic > works or not. that's beside the point) than either divine magic or > sorcery. I agree, the shaman seem the most genuinely mystical of the RQ3 magicians. Divine magic has some nice ideas such as selling your soul to the god for spells, but the spells of the rune magic system are just Holy Hand Grenades. The gifts and geases system is more elegant. I don't know what sorcery is meant to be. I'm looking forward to "Mage" and Pendragon 4th edition to see if they have any new ideas for rpg magic. > The tough question is, how can we understand what sorcery is on glorantha? > Are there stories that can show us how it works, and whether sorcerors have > guardian angels and the like, either old ones that Greg wrote that haven't > been seen by the vast majority of RQists and Gloranthaphiles, or new ones that > he would write to help us conquer the stranglehold that the rules have on > the feel of magic in glorantha? Anybody know? Unfortunately the only recent references to sorcery (and westerners) by Greg is in KoS, where they are both invariably portrayed as evil, and the only spells we can identify are Tap spells. I don't have too much hope for the Solar/Lunar book he's writing (perhaps called "The Solar System" :-)) Most of Gregs other Gloracthan material predates RQ3 so I doubt whether he had a strong conception of sorcery. I get the feeling that many of his ideas about sorcery have been influenced by the rules as well. > -- Loren 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 AA23727; Sat, 4 Sep 93 23:18:08 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA00517; Sun, 5 Sep 93 00:16:04 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 5 Sep 93 0:16:08 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Animistic spirit magic and shamans Date: Sun, 5 Sep 93 14:14:15 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <94F689E4004@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu> Animistic spirit magic and shamans. Last night I suggested the animistic spirit magic idea (the spell is actually created by a spirit associated with the caster and not directly created by the caster) to my Gm and the other players in our group. We all liked the idea but thought it would have to have game effects that just aren't in the rules now. Here are a few idea that I had after the game: i) A spirit can only keep one spell going at once ie if you know Protection 4 you can only have one protection spell (of up to 4 points) running. This would apply to all temporal spells: if you only know one Befuddle you can only have one befuddled victim at a time. ii) A shaman should have extra powers against spirit magic. How does this sound: when a person casts a spirit magic spell the spirit is let out of its focus and has to go and occupy the target, with the help of MP's from the caster to power the spell. A shaman can use his fetch to attack spell spirits that are outside their focus. A spell sprit has the usual pow (ie 1d3xpower of spell learnt) and this takes place as ordinary spirit combat. If the spell spirit is defeated (fairly likely) then the spell is dispelled and the shaman can either the spell spirit go or capture it and learn the spell himself. If the spell sprit is released it returns to its focus but will not come out until it regenerates all its magic points back (ie the character can't use the spell for a day). If the shaman learns the spell he can't use it until he has built a focus for the spirit and it has its MP back (ie the shaman can't use it for at least day). The casting character loses the spell permanently and must get a new spell. This power only works against spirit magic. If a fetch attacks a divine magic spell it automatically loses the first round of spirit combat (gods are fairly powerful). Sorcery spells don't have an associated spirit, and puzzle shamans mightily. Thoughts, Ideas, 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 AA26012; Sun, 5 Sep 93 02:06:06 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA02371; Sun, 5 Sep 93 03:04:00 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 5 Sep 93 3:04:06 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Rune Lords; GW's RQ-Heavy; Sorcery Date: Sun, 5 Sep 93 17:02:00 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <9523525370F@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu> David writes: > Unlike sorcerers or shamans, the rules for Rune Lords are quite short, and > you wouldn't gain much by summarizing them instead. This is true: it's just an extra paragraph or two in the same sections where priests are described. I just don't see Rune Lords as being as important as priests. > > Ah, I'd forgotten the GW version. I only have "Advanced RuneQuest," but > judging from what's in there, you have a point. I do believe that if the > product had been intended to be split, they could have done a better job. > And in this case, it looks like a GM truly can't run RQ without ARQ. The basic RQ book allows you to play initiate level characters with a subset of the combat system and spell lists. They certainly could have been designed better. The combat rules are split between the two books but the spells in the first book are repeated in the second. It's as though the designers couldn't decide whether to split the rules between the two books so that people have to buy both to play full RQ3 or to duplicate all of the basic book in the advanced book so that people who wanted to play full RQ3 only had to buy the big book. In the end I felt ripped off. > >From: Malcolm Cohen > >[multiplicative vs additive modifiers] > >If the perceived problem is that it is too "complicated" to have 2 different > >styles of modifier, I am in favour of keeping the additive ones. > I agree -- it's much faster for most people to add than to multiply. Fairly predictably I agree as well. 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 AA11110; Sun, 5 Sep 93 21:56:12 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA18904; Sun, 5 Sep 93 22:53:52 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 5 Sep 93 22:54:11 EDT From: davidc@cs.uwa.edu.au (David Cake) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RQ Magic Date: Mon, 6 Sep 93 10:49:47 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <8DDD777C8@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu> > Believe it or not I'm completely in agreement with Bryan on both his > points, first that RQ character generation needs to be tied into the > mileau (uh oh, Gygaxism alert) rather than being bland and generic, I like the draft rules because I am able to make them match my idea of Gloranthan character creation very closely, so I don't really think that the rules need to be changed (though obviously character creation is not complete for all purposes, it still needs the character creation stuff from both Elder Secrets and WoG Players Book to be a complete system (at least for Genertelans). But I don't think that there is any problem with the basic system. It could do with more specifically Gloranthan stuff, and with more explanation of how to do it. But that is not a big problem. I don't think that there is any reason to mess with the current mechanics, just flesh it out a little more. And we already know how to do that, just adapt the stuff from WoG. > and second that we don't currently understand how sorcery works in > glorantha and for that reason we shouldn't be expected to be able to > get a good set of rules for it. Certainly the sorcery rules do NOT > even come close to modeling the practices of western tradition magicians > on earth. In fact, the shaman rules are a much better fit to every known > human theory of how magic works (don't hassle me over whether magic > works or not. that's beside the point) than either divine magic or > sorcery. I don't think that sorcery is too far from the Western tradition and magic as it was considered in the middle ages. I like the fact that the sorcerers are both holy figures and magical ones, but that the two are not directly connected by mechanics (as they are for priests), though they are in the popular mind. This I find pleasingly reminescent of many mediaeval superstitions about priests beying inherently magical, and able to use that magic for evil purposes (such as the Mass of St. Secaire??). I like the fact that the Church in the Mediaeval parts of Glorantha is more of a political and societal grouping than a mystical one (much like the real Church), based on learning more than saintliness. I also think that Sorcery, in its stressing of the individuals learning and willpower, and its feeling that all supernatural beings are to submit to man, is not at all unlike parts of the Western magical tradition. The Sorcerous attitude to spirits and deities, for example, is not too unlike the Enochian attitude to angels. My knowledge of Western magic is not too deep, but I think that in many ways sorcery is more like the Western magical tradition than shamanism. This is particularly true if you use Pauls Spirit Twin system (I want to see the new version, Paul), which by making the mechanics more similar, I feel highlights the differences in attitude. But I think that having too much discussion of the niceties of sch differences in magical philosophy could get us seriously sidetracked!! > > -- Loren > Dave Cake  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA11744; Sun, 5 Sep 93 22:48:16 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA19647; Sun, 5 Sep 93 23:47:23 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 5 Sep 93 23:47:31 EDT From: davidc@cs.uwa.edu.au (David Cake) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: SORCERY Date: Mon, 6 Sep 93 11:43:27 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <9C1B350C0@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu> > IMO there are two advantages to the presence/twin concept. One is the > gameplay one: the sorcerer doesn't have to keep track of the durations > of a number of spells, he just turns them off when not needed. I've > always liked the idea of long duration spells, and the presence idea > removes the most abusive aspects. I definately agree. I also think that it provides for interesting gameplay problems, in that there are very important decisions to make about what to do with you magical energies. > > The other advantage is the conceptual one, which you seem to dislike. > This is a matter of taste I suppose, but I like the idea of unifying the > magic users: they each expand their spirit/pow beyond the limits of the > normal human soul, but with limitations. The shaman goes the "natural > way" but ends up a bit insane and needs the support of others to survive; > the priestess uses a god to control her twin but thereby loses control over > it and can only contact it through worship; the sorcerer binds it to > himself and has the most power over it but then needs to have the knowledge > to control it. I thought that the conceptions behind it where more like the shaman awakens his magic, but becomes somewhat schizophrenic in the process, the sorcerer uses rigid self-control to keep a tight rein on his magic, and the priestess does not awaken her magic herself, but makes a connection to a (sentient?) pool of magic energy called a deity, and can draw power from it in exchange for more contributions to the godly power pool. Of course, this is God-learner stuff (particularly about the worshippers giving power to the god - most divine users know that it is the other way around). (this also has the bonus of controlling abuses such as > sorcerer-shamans which munchkins adore but makes it difficult to explain > priest-shamans). Actually, I think that reall sorcerer shamans should be the most powerful things around - and pretty damn unlikely, as they are from completely different cultures. I can see some Mistress Race Trolls going this route, though. I don't think this means that they have more than one Fetch/Spirit Twin though, I just think it means that they can do things that others cannot, like use their fetch to power damn big sorcery spells. A real HeroQuest path of inner conflict, IMHO But there is no reason that their can't be priest-shamans - there is no reason that you can't have more than one connection to the otherworld, same as you can be an initiate of more than one deity. > > Graeme Lindsell a.k.a gal502@huxley.anu.edu.au > > Dave Cake  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA14262; Mon, 6 Sep 93 02:19:29 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA21977; Mon, 6 Sep 93 03:17:23 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 6 Sep 93 3:17:29 EDT From: David Dunham (via RadioMail) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Rune Lords Date: Mon, 06 Sep 1993 00:16:59 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: > Graeme Lindsell a.k.a gal502@huxley.anu.edu.au > This is true: it's just an extra paragraph or two in the same sections >where priests are described. I just don't see Rune Lords as being as >important as priests. RQ3 made it real obvious that they're not as important in the culture (not at all clear from RQ2), but they're probably more important to players. (Of course, it may also depend on whether you use the Priest skill restrictions -- I understand many people don't. I do in RQ [tho not in PenDragon Pass])  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA16378; Mon, 6 Sep 93 04:43:28 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA23406; Mon, 6 Sep 93 05:41:23 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 6 Sep 93 5:41:27 EDT From: Mystic Musk Ox To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Skills Date: Mon, 6 Sep 93 10:39 BST Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: David Dunham (via RadioMail) >>From: Mystic Musk Ox >>Bargain Skill. >>[counter-based rules] >This looks quite reasonable, albeit slow. It looks like the perfect sort of >thing for a Rules Companion -- RQ-Lite would have the standard Bargain, >then you'd offer more detail for those that need it. Well, it depends on how you look at things, I would like to see more detailed rules for use of skills _other_ than combat. Note: I don't necessarily mean more complex here! But it seems a pity that combat gets a lot of the detail, whereas something like trading etc, which could easily be the basis of a campaign is nowhere near as well specified. After all, what makes combat interesting is that there are lots of things happening, different tactics being used, people recovering from cockups etc. I feel that this sort of thing ought to be happening in noncombat situations too... --------------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Buckley ----------------------------------------------------------------------  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA29892; Mon, 6 Sep 93 19:24:14 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA11935; Mon, 6 Sep 93 20:23:11 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 6 Sep 93 20:23:25 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: SORCERY Date: Mon, 6 Sep 93 20:22:51 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <1E5B75712F@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu> It looks to me as if David Cheng has "caught" the ideas we were trying to get across with the Presence system. Hard to add anything, really, in a short note. In a few weeks I will try to post more on the system but I am currently swamped. I may post a draft that is about a month old sometime soon, though.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA05384; Tue, 7 Sep 93 00:17:21 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA16762; Tue, 7 Sep 93 01:15:09 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 7 Sep 93 1:15:20 EDT From: David Dunham (via RadioMail) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Skills Date: Mon, 06 Sep 1993 22:14:34 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <2339842FB7@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu> >Mystic Musk Ox >>This looks quite reasonable, albeit slow. It looks like the perfect sort of >>thing for a Rules Companion -- RQ-Lite would have the standard Bargain, >>then you'd offer more detail for those that need it. > >Well, it depends on how you look at things, I would like to see more >detailed rules for use of skills _other_ than combat. Note: I don't >necessarily mean more complex here! But it seems a pity that combat >gets a lot of the detail, whereas something like trading etc, which >could easily be the basis of a campaign is nowhere near as well specified. >After all, what makes combat interesting is that there are lots of things >happening, different tactics being used, people recovering from cockups >etc. I feel that this sort of thing ought to be happening in noncombat >situations too... It's hard to imagine how to get more detailed _without_ getting more complex! When I ran a cyberpunk game based on Pendragon, I had basically 3 levels of detail for netrunning: one was simple opposed rolls of Cyberfacing, one was essentially spirit combat, the third was sort of a Rock-Scissors-Paper tactic game. I almost always used the first, and only used the second for really important stuff. The detail just wasn't worth it when only one player was involved and it required unique rules. The track-based idea is a reasonable detail-adder, but it will have to be the only new resolution system. Since it's yet another system, perhaps it can be used in place of spirit combat, or spirit combat can be extended to handle extended opposition of skills (as in the cyberpunk example)? Also, I think some GMs tend to prefer role-playing to rolling for non-life-threatening skills. I think the single easiest way to elaborate non-combat skills is to describe critical success for all skills (as did Ringworld and to a lesser degree Pendragon). This adds only a sentence per skill and no new rules, but it adds immensely to the impression that combat is not the only thing with any detail.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA09446; Tue, 7 Sep 93 04:58:26 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA19483; Tue, 7 Sep 93 05:55:54 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 7 Sep 93 5:57:34 EDT From: Mystic Musk Ox To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Skills Date: Tue, 7 Sep 93 10:54 BST Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <27E7B0639D@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu> from David Dunham: >It's hard to imagine how to get more detailed _without_ getting more complex! Well, there is not necessarily a connection. Take chess as an example. The rules are not very complex, but the level of analysis and decision making available can go to any depth you like. I'm not saying that RPG's ought to be more chess-like (Pocharngo forbid|!), but I think you can have simple mechanics generating detail or 'feel', whatever that is, which can be taken as far as players want. >When I ran a cyberpunk game based on Pendragon, I had basically 3 levels of >detail for netrunning: one was simple opposed rolls of Cyberfacing, one was >essentially spirit combat, the third was sort of a Rock-Scissors-Paper >tactic game. I almost always used the first, and only used the second for >really important stuff. The detail just wasn't worth it when only one >player was involved and it required unique rules. I think we are coming from different backgrounds of players here. The people I play with all very much like the rule manipulation type of game - we also all meet one night a week to play Empires in Arms (a long term corps level military, political and economic board game of the Napoleonic era) - and so tend to emphasise that aspect of things I think. >The track-based idea is a reasonable detail-adder, but it will have to be >the only new resolution system. Since it's yet another system, perhaps it >can be used in place of spirit combat, or spirit combat can be extended to >handle extended opposition of skills (as in the cyberpunk example)? Hm, must admit I hadn't thought of using it for spirit combat - that might be a nice idea...especially given that Spirit Combat is now a skill. >Also, I think some GMs tend to prefer role-playing to rolling for >non-life-threatening skills. Yes, this is very true. If you have a setup where lots of this type of thing going on, it might be easier over the long run to do it by some type of skill system though. In this case the emphasis of the role playing turns from tactical (eg individual bargains), to strategic (eg how do we expand our merchant empire, given an average income of xxxL/month using our current skill levels). >I think the single easiest way to elaborate non-combat skills is to >describe critical success for all skills (as did Ringworld and to a lesser >degree Pendragon). This adds only a sentence per skill and no new rules, >but it adds immensely to the impression that combat is not the only thing >with any detail. Yes, I think this is a good point. My original unhappiness with Bargain, Orate, etc was that the skill description took no account of how good the other guy was at bargaining, orating etc. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Buckley -----------------------------------------------------------------------------  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA29592; Tue, 7 Sep 93 13:19:41 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA13337; Tue, 7 Sep 93 14:18:38 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 7 Sep 93 14:18:51 EDT From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Animist magic Date: Tue, 7 Sep 93 13:18:09 -0500 Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <3048146592@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu> Animistic spirit magic and shamans. >i) A spirit can only keep one spell going at once ie if you know Protection >4 you can only have one protection spell (of up to 4 points) running. This >would apply to all temporal spells: if you only know one Befuddle you can >only have one befuddled victim at a time. Okay, this will make spirit magic less powerful, but I LIKE THE FLAVOR!!! Would the limit if INT in points of spirit spells still apply? If this is the case, then characters can suddenly find their abilities SHARPLY curtailed, ESPECIALLY shamans, who are pretty close to their INT in points of spirit magic, or should be. Yes, I know a fetch extends this, but only so much, and what if the Shaman craps out in the fetch's INT roll? Maybe different total limit needs to be considered, to permit someone to have two befuddle spirits bound, for example. Perhaps INT plus POW? Maybe a completely different mechanic? >ii) A shaman should have extra powers against spirit magic. How does this >sound: when a person casts a spirit magic spell the spirit is let out of >its focus and has to go and occupy the target, with the help of MP's from >the caster to power the spell. A shaman can use his fetch to attack spell >spirits that are outside their focus. A spell sprit has the usual pow (ie >1d3xpower of spell learnt) and this takes place as ordinary spirit combat. Hmm... Extra book-keeping. You'd have to keep track of the POW for each spirit for each spell a character "knows". Anyway, this DOES make Shamans REAL masters of spirit magic, and I like the basic idea (it's sort of how I already view RQ spirit magic), but mechanics need work, and I'm not so sure that it is 100% appropriate to apply to every instance of "spirit magic" (a godlearner term, after all, one which is not really accurate). I would rule that "spirit magic" spells which are derived from beating up a "spell spirit" that is NOT a divine cult spell spirit would be effected by this, but some "spirit magic" which is cult magic might not--after all, I see some of these spells as actually being lent by the deity, not just stolen from a passing spirit. I would think that some of the deity's essense might be in these spells, and it would be a good incentive for characters to learn those cult spells, if they are less prone to be stolen by some damned shaman. Maybe a shaman can suppress a cult spirit spell but cannot steal it unless the shaman is of the same cult.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA00476; Tue, 7 Sep 93 13:31:09 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA13947; Tue, 7 Sep 93 14:30:16 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 7 Sep 93 14:30:20 EDT From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: The "Western" magickal tradition and Sorcery Date: Tue, 7 Sep 93 13:29:42 -0500 Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <3079A329EF@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu> Do people who claim that RQ Sorcery is like the "Western magical tradition" of the Medieval period really understand what they're getting into? Medieval magic is NOTHING AT ALL LIKE ANY GAME ON THE MARKET. I may consult a few sources and post some summaries if folks have an interest, but there are no games at all on the market which have anything resembling magic as it claimed to be practiced in the Middle Ages of Europe (Ars Magica least of all).  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA01538; Tue, 7 Sep 93 13:51:28 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA14956; Tue, 7 Sep 93 14:50:34 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 7 Sep 93 14:50:39 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Animistic spirit magic and shamans Date: Tue, 7 Sep 93 14:50:09 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <30D0E17557@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu> Paul Reilly here. I sent in a write-up on this a while ago, so I feel I should comment. Mostly I agree with Graeme but I am now calling this 'spirit helper' magic rather than Animistic. Graeme makes several good points, including the possibility of a shaman stealing your spell spirits (rather like corporate executives). To learn one of these spells you go with a shaman into the Otherworld (in spirit anyway) and somehow acquire a helper spirit. For many cultures these will appear as animals; a turtle might be able to Protect you. Trolls might get insects. > i) A spirit can only keep one spell going at once ie if you know Protection That's how we do it also. We've toyed with the idea that the spirit can 'split' its attention, i.e. a Prot 4 spirit can run two Prot 2's at once. I rather like the idea of this little guy jumping around on the spirit plane trying to deflect arrows for two people at once... >ii) A shaman should have extra powers against spirit magic. How does this Yes. Shamans can talk to spirits, can attack spell-maintaining spirits in spirit combat, etc. Example of Shamanic Magic They have fine control of effects. A shaman in our campaign has a little (One-point) Cold spirit that she calls Jack Frost. She sends him on little missions by bribing him with one MP; his effects include chilling a liter of water, turning the already cold water to slush, freezing the slush (she makes ice cream this way), and giving people a 'Coldfoot' - like Disrupt, but only one point of damage. He can only do one thing at a time. She sees him as a classic Jack Frost, i.e., a pixie with a pointy cap, etc., who zips happily around the room. Sorcerors see him as a bundle of Cold Rune energies and think she is doing a sort of poorly controlled intuitive sorcery. The "focus" is a sort of little house for the spirit to live in. This has the advantage of matching some real-world views of primitive magic. ------------------------- A second type of primitve magic is a bit different and for this I am using the name "Animist" magic. In this view everything has a spirit: rocks, flowers, birds, swords, ropes, etc. People may have a personal guardian spirit (the 'genius' of the Romans). Learning a spirit magic spell is learning how to communicate with and 'bribe' a certain type of spirit; for example, someone who learns to talk to Sword spirits can bribe his sword to work harder for him (Bladesharp). After this he might learn to bribe his enemies' swords to go easy on him (Dullblade). He might even be able to lend strength to his sword to help it resist damage (Parry). Similarly, one who learns to bribe Fire spirits might learn to wake them up (Ignite) and soothe them back to sleep (Extinguish). Note that this system is quite different from the 'helper spirit' system. One could have several spells running at once in this system. You do not have to have a crowd of helper spirits. There is no real need for a 'focus' unless it somehow helps talk to spirits. Etc. Well, more later, Paul PS> My long-held view: Rune Priests communicate between worshippers and gods. Rune Lords identify with and embody their god. Thus in rituals and Heroquests the priests are the guys who bridge between the worlds, chant, keep the gates open, describe the action to the Initiates, etc. The Rune Lords take the part of the deity in the rituals (like Gilgamesh marrying Innana.)  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA03037; Tue, 7 Sep 93 14:23:04 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA16839; Tue, 7 Sep 93 15:22:12 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 7 Sep 93 15:22:16 EDT From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Rune Lords Date: Tue, 07 Sep 1993 20:03:58 MEZ Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <31580F7FF3@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu> David Dunham: >> Graeme Lindsell a.k.a gal502@huxley.anu.edu.au >> This is true: it's just an extra paragraph or two in the same sections >> where priests are described. I just don't see Rune Lords as being as >> important as priests. > RQ3 made it real obvious that they're not as important in the culture (not > at all clear from RQ2), but they're probably more important to players. And King of Sartar made clear that their importance was greater than RQ3 made us believe (not that RQ3 did say much about Rune Lords...). In Orlanthi culture a Rune Lord is equivalent in rank to a clan leader. Whenever a Rune Lord and an ordinary man vie for a position, the Rune Lord will get preference. (Of course the Rune Lord won't apply for positions his cult makes him unsuitable for.) > (Of course, it may also depend on whether you use the Priest skill > restrictions -- I understand many people don't. I do in RQ [tho not in > PenDragon Pass]) Why this duality? -- 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 AA02805; Tue, 7 Sep 93 14:17:03 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA16373; Tue, 7 Sep 93 15:16:06 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 7 Sep 93 15:16:12 EDT From: "Loren J. Miller" To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: The "Western" magickal tradition and Sorcery Date: 07 Sep 1993 15:17:14 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <313DF8361A@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu> Bryan Maloney writes: > Do people who claim that RQ Sorcery is like the "Western magical tradition" of > the Medieval period really understand what they're getting into? Hint, you're getting into a *big* *fight* with Bryan. This is one of his hobby horses, and the Mumbler's too. :) One of the godlearner secrets is that all science and magic is based on religion and theological relationships, even if it is rooted in atheism as is our mechanical view of existence. (Is the Mumbler telling the truth or is he tricking you?) One of the major problems, in the Mumbler's opinion, with using the medieval magical tradition for generic magic is that it all depends on the correct theological background, a sort of neo-platonic pseudo-gnostic understanding of reality, and that is anything *but* generic. It isn't very easily portable to Glorantha, or anyplace other than a formerly teutonic europe heavily influenced by neo-platonic mystery religions, zoroastroanism, and heretical strains of christianity. Rather than forcing this neo-platonic muddle on Seshnela, the Mumbler says we'd be better off figuring out what kind of theology the Seshnelans really have and basing a system of sorcery on that. whoah, +++++++++++++++++++++++23 Loren Miller internet: MILLERL@wharton.upenn.edu "Enough sound bites. Let's get to work." -- Ross Perot sound bite  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA12518; Wed, 8 Sep 93 17:48:06 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA16079; Wed, 8 Sep 93 18:47:03 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 8 Sep 93 18:47:16 EDT From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: The "Western" magickal tradition and Sorcery Date: Tue, 07 Sep 1993 21:40:24 MEZ Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <4CC32748B1@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu> In <3079A329EF@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu>, you write: > Do people who claim that RQ Sorcery is like the "Western magical tradition" of > the Medieval period really understand what they're getting into? > Medieval magic is NOTHING AT ALL LIKE ANY GAME ON THE MARKET. > I may consult a few sources and post some summaries if folks have an interest, > but there are no games at all on the market which have anything resembling > magic as it claimed to be practiced in the Middle Ages of Europe (Ars Magica > least of all). Please do so, even though the information wouldn't necessarily apply to Western Gloranthan magic. I'm not even sure which part of medieval Europe is meant with "Western Europe". I am somewhat familiar with Norse magics from the sagas, and I might be able to get a copy of the witch hammer to read the church's view on unholy magic. Do you mean renaissance-like practitioners like Albertus Magnus, Lucretia Borghia or similar practitioners of the arcane? Anyway, I think that our picture of medieval magic is dominated less by historic reality than by fiction. I'm quite interested what Pendragon 5th edition magic will bring... -- 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 AA13574; Tue, 7 Sep 93 17:15:02 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA26035; Tue, 7 Sep 93 18:14:04 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 7 Sep 93 18:14:12 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: COMMENTS Date: Tue, 7 Sep 93 18:13:35 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <3435453D62@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu> Burton: You asked about the use of triangular numbers. They come up in probability theory (along with binomial distributions). Also the training times in RQ3 are differences of triangular numbers. Other examples abound... - Paul  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA00705; Wed, 8 Sep 93 03:11:28 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA08572; Wed, 8 Sep 93 04:10:35 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 8 Sep 93 4:10:38 EDT From: David Dunham (via RadioMail) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Rune Lords Date: Wed, 08 Sep 1993 01:09:44 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <3E26E85323@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu> >From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) >And King of Sartar made clear that their importance was greater than RQ3 >made us believe (not that RQ3 did say much about Rune Lords...). Rune Lords are not mentioned at all on p.245... Where do you get the impression that Rune Lords are like clan leaders? (I haven't gone back and done much looking, but I can't find it in KoS.) >> (Of course, it may also depend on whether you use the Priest skill >> restrictions -- I understand many people don't. I do in RQ [tho not in >> PenDragon Pass]) > >Why this duality? Because PenDragon Pass uses different game mechanics -- DEX*3% limits make no sense. (And because I forgot.)  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA04089; Wed, 8 Sep 93 07:21:18 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA15674; Wed, 8 Sep 93 08:20:18 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 8 Sep 93 8:20:27 EDT From: burt@ptltd.com (Burton Choinski) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: COMMENTS Date: Wed, 8 Sep 93 08:16:34 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <4250306B68@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu> Paul notes... ------- You asked about the use of triangular numbers. They come up in probability theory (along with binomial distributions). Also the training times in RQ3 are differences of triangular numbers. Other examples abound... ------- I figured they had to have some important use someplace. When I started using them in games a long time ago, it just felt right. :) -- Burton  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA04914; Wed, 8 Sep 93 07:58:39 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA16835; Wed, 8 Sep 93 08:57:46 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 8 Sep 93 8:57:48 EDT From: burt@ptltd.com (Burton Choinski) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: SPIRIT MAGIC Date: Wed, 8 Sep 93 08:54:08 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <42F0974024@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu> Paul Reilly, on Spirit Magic... =============================================================================== %% Paul Reilly here. I sent in a write-up on this a while ago, so I feel %% I should comment. Mostly I agree with Graeme but I am now calling this %% 'spirit helper' magic rather than Animistic. Is that anything like "Walktapus Helper" the lunars use? :) %% That's how we do it also. We've toyed with the idea that the spirit can %% 'split' its attention, i.e. a Prot 4 spirit can run two Prot 2's at once. %% I rather like the idea of this little guy jumping around on the spirit %% plane trying to deflect arrows for two people at once... This sounds like the best way to go to me. My Shamans in my group haven't used any spells that require this yet, but this is probably how I will go. %% >ii) A shaman should have extra powers against spirit magic. How does this %% %% Yes. Shamans can talk to spirits, can attack spell-maintaining spirits %% in spirit combat, etc. Actually, I forgot this aspect. My group was complaining how their fetches were not as useful as they thought they would be, since when you leave your body the fetch moves in to keep it alive (keep it from walking off cliffs, drinking bleach, etc. :) This little addendum would be a good add. Graeme Lindsel continues... %% This is a nice system but I don't think the current game mechanics for %% spirit magic can be bent to fit it. The current spirit magic system is %% a bit like quantum mechanics: the game rules are good but I can't explain %% what they mean. Why are these spell spirits floating around teaching %% people spells when the get beaten up. We have been playing that the "beating up" of the spirit is not combat in the usual sense, since they do not possess you if you lose. Your spirit combat in this sense is more like trying to convince it to become your pal. The idea's used vary based on the type of spell spirit. For example, A shaman and a Silence spirit may actually be having a hide & seek game in a spirit environment. Your "beating" it means you managed to out sneak it, and it agrees to join you (and will work with you if you provide room and board, i.e. focus and Mana :) %% > Maybe a shaman can suppress a cult spirit spell but cannot steal it unless %% the %% > shaman is of the same cult. %% > %% I don't have a problem with a shaman stealing cult spirit magic - after all %% the shaman is meant to be the master of spirits, and he has no special %% powers over divine magic or sorcery. I view cult spirit magic as not the same as "regular" spirit magic. While I might agree that Shamans and their fetches may be able to shoo off spirit spells that are active, or steal spirit spells from people, I see cult spirit magics as bits of the god him/her/itself, not a free thinking spirit. These bits are raw power that cannot be bribed, swayed, or alter their plans the way a Shaman might be able to do to a normal spirit. -- Burton  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA16137; Wed, 8 Sep 93 11:28:43 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA27373; Wed, 8 Sep 93 12:27:45 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 8 Sep 93 12:27:52 EDT From: Brent Krupp To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: subscribe escharf@seattleu.edu to rq-playtest Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1993 09:26:39 -0700 (PDT) Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <4670D65638@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu> please subscribe escharf@seattleu.edu to the rq-playtest mailing list (i hope this is the subscription address - if not, then sorry!)  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA28894; Wed, 8 Sep 93 01:33:02 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA07460; Wed, 8 Sep 93 02:31:51 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 8 Sep 93 2:32:12 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: The "Western" magickal tradition and Sorcery Date: Wed, 8 Sep 93 16:29:18 GMT Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <3C819307DA@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu> Graeme repsonding to Bryan (I think): > Medieval magic is NOTHING AT ALL LIKE ANY GAME ON THE MARKET. > > I may consult a few sources and post some summaries if folks have an interest A quick summary would be appreciated (if it's possible to do a quick summary) or a couple of good references. My knowledge of medieval magic is confined to what I read in "The Myth of the Magus", which is hardly specific and most of it's material is renaissance rather than medieval > but there are no games at all on the market which have anything resembling > magic as it claimed to be practiced in the Middle Ages of Europe (Ars Magica > least of all). > Yes, I've always wondered at people who seem to think Ars Magica is the be all and end all of magic systems. The mechanics are the nice parts but most of the spells and the flavour of the game seem little different from AD&D to me. Are there any powers that can be considered to be "generic" to a particular type of magician? The shaman has contact with the spirit world (making most civilized mediums into shamans I suppose) and the prietsess with her god. What are the mythical powers of the independent magician. Can they be said to have any generic ability? 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 AA29293; Wed, 8 Sep 93 01:53:22 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA07743; Wed, 8 Sep 93 02:52:30 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 8 Sep 93 2:52:31 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Animistic spirit magic and shamans Date: Wed, 8 Sep 93 16:50:19 GMT Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <3CDA393790@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu> Graeme replying to Paul: > > Example of Shamanic Magic > > They have fine control of effects. A shaman in our > campaign has a little (One-point) Cold spirit that she calls Jack Frost. > She sends him on little missions by bribing him with one MP; his > effects include chilling a liter of water, turning the already cold > water to slush, freezing the slush (she makes ice cream this way), and > giving people a 'Coldfoot' - like Disrupt, but only one point of damage. > He can only do one thing at a time. She sees him as a classic Jack Frost, > i.e., a pixie with a pointy cap, etc., who zips happily around the room. > Sorcerors see him as a bundle of Cold Rune energies and think she is > doing a sort of poorly controlled intuitive sorcery. > > The "focus" is a sort of little house for the spirit to live in. This > has the advantage of matching some real-world views of primitive magic. > > > ------------------------- > > A second type of primitve magic is a bit different and for this I am > using the name "Animist" magic. In this view everything has a spirit: > rocks, flowers, birds, swords, ropes, etc. People may have a personal > guardian spirit (the 'genius' of the Romans). > > Learning a spirit magic spell is learning how to communicate > with and 'bribe' a certain type of spirit; for example, someone who > learns to talk to Sword spirits can bribe his sword to work harder > for him (Bladesharp). After this he might learn to bribe his enemies' > swords to go easy on him (Dullblade). He might even be able to > lend strength to his sword to help it resist damage (Parry). > > Similarly, one who learns to bribe Fire spirits might learn to > wake them up (Ignite) and soothe them back to sleep (Extinguish). > > Note that this system is quite different from the 'helper spirit' system. > One could have several spells running at once in this system. You do not > have to have a crowd of helper spirits. There is no real need for a 'focus' > unless it somehow helps talk to spirits. Etc. This is a nice system but I don't think the current game mechanics for spirit magic can be bent to fit it. The current spirit magic system is a bit like quantum mechanics: the game rules are good but I can't explain what they mean. Why are these spell spirits floating around teaching people spells when the get beaten up. The spirit helper sysem is more of an explanation than a new system, there are just a few effects on the game mechanics. (As an aside, I think RQ divine magic has the opposite problem: the explanation works fine, since gods have always been interested in souls (ie POW), but I think the mechanics are weak. Sorcery has both problems: the mechanics have problems, Free Int is bizarre and the source of their ability seems to be "people in RQ can do that") The animist system could be best explained (IMHO) by a kind of primitive "sorcery" ie the effects are the same as the spirit magic spells but you need to know skills ie a fire spirit magician could cast Ignite, Extinguish and Light but would need to know how to talk to them (ie skills) rather than fighting them. Perhaps an initial POW sacrifice would be needed to get the ability to talk to a kind of spirit ie if an animist has sacrificed 4 POW to "the fire spirits" he could cast Ignite, Extinguish or Light of up to 4 points but would need to make his Fire Animist skill roll rather than a POW x 5 roll. I might think about an animist system a bit more. > Paul > > > PS> My long-held view: > > Rune Priests communicate between worshippers and gods. > > Rune Lords identify with and embody their god. Very true. My only problem is that Rune Lords seem to have weaker magic than the priests. 1d10 divine intervention is nice but a short trip to 2 POW. The Rune Lord usually seems to be more a kind of higher class status in most of the cults. 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 AA00376; Wed, 8 Sep 93 02:50:23 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA08320; Wed, 8 Sep 93 03:49:29 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 8 Sep 93 3:49:32 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Animist magic Date: Wed, 8 Sep 93 17:47:11 GMT Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <3DCCDD0284@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu> Graeme here: > Would the limit if INT in points of spirit spells still apply? That was the idea. The befuddle/demoralize limit is really the only bad limitation: most other temporal spirit magic tend to be cast in fairly limited numbers. > spirit magic, or should be. Yes, I know a fetch extends this, but only so > much, and what if the Shaman craps out in the fetch's INT roll? > Tell me about crappy: my character just made Sword of Humakt and got an allied spirit POW roll = 5, and only a 5% chance to increase since it's a spirit. Why don't NPC rune levels ever get allied spirits like that? > Maybe different total limit needs to be considered, to permit someone to have > two befuddle spirits bound, for example. Perhaps INT plus POW? Maybe a > completely different mechanic? Well the INT limit works, but IMO a POW limit for points of spirit magic would make more sense. POW is the "magic" characteristic, and to make a spirit binding enchantment you use POW. INT would then become a skill that only effects skills, and its effect of almost every skill modifier wouldn't be as bad. The idea of being able to use one's own POW to bind spirits has some interesting consequences: what other spirits could you bind in there? > > Hmm... Extra book-keeping. You'd have to keep track of the POW for each spirit > for each spell a character "knows". Or just assume it's 2 x the points of spell the character knows. Since it's 1d3 per point it's usually fairly close to that. > > Maybe a shaman can suppress a cult spirit spell but cannot steal it unless the > shaman is of the same cult. > I don't have a problem with a shaman stealing cult spirit magic - after all the shaman is meant to be the master of spirits, and he has no special powers over divine magic or sorcery. If the Chalana Arroy loses her Sleep spell to a Broo shaman, then she shouldn't have cast it while the Broo was around perhaps this is how CA lost befuddle to the rest of the world). There is no mention that spirit magic ever uses a gods help at all. 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 AA04306; Thu, 9 Sep 93 02:34:15 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA27511; Thu, 9 Sep 93 03:33:08 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 9 Sep 93 3:33:25 EDT From: davidc@cs.uwa.edu.au (David Cake) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: The "Western" magickal tradition and Sorcery Date: Thu, 9 Sep 93 15:25:18 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <5587C5197C@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu> > > > Do people who claim that RQ Sorcery is like the "Western magical tradition" of > the Medieval period really understand what they're getting into? > I don't think that anybody does claim that, really. Some people (me included) might think that RQ Sorcery is more like Medieval magic than RQ shamans or RQ Divine Magic is. That is a much less serious claim. I actually think that RQ Sorcery has several major things in common with much Medieval magic - being intertwined with Church tradition, stressing supernatural beings as being capable of masteryby man (like the Enochian magic tradition). Doesn't mean that I think they are teribly similar. The obvious dissimilarity is that RQ magic is far more direct and quick than virtually any real world magic was even supposed to be. > > Medieval magic is NOTHING AT ALL LIKE ANY GAME ON THE MARKET. Which doesn't mean that game magic and real world traditions can't have a few things in common. And using part of the philosophical basis of real world magical traditions for sorcery is probablya good idea to give it some flavour. > > I may consult a few sources and post some summaries if folks have an interest, > but there are no games at all on the market which have anything resembling > magic as it claimed to be practiced in the Middle Ages of Europe (Ars Magica > least of all). Yes. But Zap-flash-bang magic makes better cinema. > Dave Cake.  0, redistributed,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA21591; Wed, 8 Sep 93 19:39:41 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA19169; Wed, 8 Sep 93 20:38:46 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 8 Sep 93 20:38:51 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Rune Lords Date: Thu, 9 Sep 93 10:36:31 GMT Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <4EA0042E04@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu> Replying to David: > Rune Lords are not mentioned at all on p.245... Where do you get the > impression that Rune Lords are like clan leaders? (I haven't gone back and > done much looking, but I can't find it in KoS.) > I can't recall anything in KoS either, but I'm influenced by the way all clan leaders are RL's in published scenarios. This is true of the Lunars as well. I feel RL is more of a social status, and I doubt that people of low birth are allowed to become Rune Lords in some societies, even if they are qualified cult initiates. This is stated as so in Yelm and Waha, but I suspect the more civilised Orlanthi in Ralios would have such limitations as well. > > Because PenDragon Pass uses different game mechanics -- DEX*3% limits make > no sense. (And because I forgot.) DEX as a limit would work in PenDragon Pass wouldn't it? It's equivalent to a Dex x 5% rather than x 3, but it's a simple mechanic. Graeme Lindsell a.k.a gal502@huxley.anu.edu.au  0, redistributed,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA12102; Thu, 9 Sep 93 09:24:35 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA11096; Thu, 9 Sep 93 10:23:07 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 9 Sep 93 10:23:40 EDT From: pearton@unpsun1.cc.unp.ac.za (Dave Pearton) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Animistic spirit magic and tricksters Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1993 12:55:17 +0200 (GMT+0200) Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Content-Type: text X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <5C5D6E13DF@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu> Greetings, I must admit I really liked the feel of both types of looking at spirit magic that were given and in my twisted mind I as usual thought about how it might affect tricksters. My main problem with tricksters is that they have the same chance of spell success as anybody else, whereas I would like them to have a far more random and bizzarre method of success. This fits in with the idea of a trickster being the but of his own jokes as often as not. The two approaches to spirit magic would allow this. In #1 (soory forgot what you called it) where each person has a bevy of spirits which maintain a spell each the following could apply to tricksters: Those spell spirits gained from trickster shrines are naturally going to be of a disorderly nature, thus persuading such a spirit to cast and maintain a spell is not going to be easy ;). The trickster is going to have to somehow persuade the spirit each time. How he does this is up to the trickster himself and the gamesmaster, but he should be able to use his abilities most related to the spirits function: He could intimidate, fast talk, bribe, seduce (? ;) and any of a myriad other options, the scope for role-play in this is huge! With non-trickster spell spirits then merely the fact that the player is a trickster should be sufficient for the spirit not to trust the character (after all, who trusts a trickster, in the spirit world as well as the mortal world?) and so a little extra coersion in addition to merely feeding mp's would be necessary. In #2 (Animist approach ?) I think that a modification of the second idea above is in order. If the spirits of a locality/aspect are aware that the character is a trickster them they would be less likely to trust/help them. In any event tricksters would have extra work to try and convince the spirits to help them and there would always be a chance that the spirit would remain unconvinced/ see through the deception/ etc and so either not cast the spell, playa trick on the trickster ;), or work against the character depending on how successful he was. Mmmmm, this got longer than I thought, thanks for bearing with me. This is just a way of making a trickster's life much more fun and disorderly and introducing a new aspect of role-playing that I see haveing a lot of scope for fun. Well, comments and/or flames anybody? I don't mind and remember I have a 4 pt glamour stacked with lie so you WILL believe and accept this ;) Yak non-tr -- *********************************************************************** Dave Pearton * ....As I was saying before I Biochemistry Dept. * was so rudely interrupted University of Natal * by one of my multiple Pietermaritzburg * personalities.... * pearton@unpsun1.cc.unp.ac.za * Naked Lunch (W.S. Burroughs) ************************************************************************  0, redistributed,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA25100; Thu, 9 Sep 93 13:23:13 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA24047; Thu, 9 Sep 93 14:22:10 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 9 Sep 93 14:22:20 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Animistic spirit magic and shamans Date: Thu, 9 Sep 93 14:21:56 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <6059FC3CF4@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu> Paul replying to Graeme replying to Paul replying... For the animist system I wasn't really thinking of changing the mechanics (although of course you could) but instead of keeping the same mechanics except for changing the fashion in which 'spells' are learned and changing the groups in which they are learned. I was thinking about this soime more and perhaps the idea of a focus is a good one, but it acts sort of like a medium. For example: Sword Magic. A shaman teaches me how to talk to my sword. With her help it is trained to do a 'trick' (Bladesharp 1) if I give it a reward (Magic Point). I think this would be fine, limiting you to a special relationship with your own sword, like having a dog. It pretty much does what you want and together you learn new tricks, like Bladesharp 2 and Parry. As you get better at this, you can also start to talk to other swords, perhaps using you own as a 'translator'; being a sword, it can communicate better and get the other sword to do a 'trick' (provided your sword knows the trick itself.) Anyway, I see no reason why different cultures wouldn't have different views of what spirit magic is. The problem, as always, is when cultural clashes occur. - Paul  0, redistributed,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA25792; Fri, 10 Sep 93 01:44:16 -0500 Return-Path: <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA18268; Fri, 10 Sep 93 02:43:02 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 10 Sep 93 2:43:24 EDT From: Nick Brooke <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Animist Trickster Spirits Date: 09 Sep 93 18:16:42 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <6CB26F0A3B@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu> Just dropping by to say that Dave Pearton's ideas for how Tricksters would interact with an animist spirit-magic rule-set had me clutching my sides with laughter. This is a dangerously good idea! I believe it can work on several levels -- whether it be "the spirit is the spell" ("You! Go and befuddle that one") or multi-functional "spirit helpers" (more like Paul's "Jack Frost") whose abilities are more nebulously defined, or this one wherein the Trickster has to interact with his own and other spell spirits in order to get them to work. I am very entertained. This lot could enhance RQ shamanic magic no end! Now: what about "Divine Spirit Magic" (i.e. cult spells). How can we improve their flavour, to reflect the fact that they're what God wants you to do and not just some straggly little guys you met and beat up on the Spirit Plane? If your cult spirit magic possesses *any* free will of its own, us PCs could be in for a *lot* of trouble! Not that that's a problem, of course: more a permanent scenario hook. ==== Nick ====  0, redistributed,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA19044; Thu, 9 Sep 93 21:18:45 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA12763; Thu, 9 Sep 93 22:17:41 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 9 Sep 93 22:17:53 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Animistic spirit magic and shamans Date: Fri, 10 Sep 93 12:15:00 GMT Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <6846477AB3@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu> > Graeme replying to Paul replying to Graeme replying to Paul replying... [while list do "reply to Paul" ? Can I be described that simply?] > > For the animist system I wasn't really thinking of changing the mechanics > (although of course you could) but instead of keeping the same mechanics > except for changing the fashion in which 'spells' are learned and changing > the groups in which they are learned. > Well I think there have to some changes to mechanics with either of the new viewpoints. The mechanics of spirit magic as written in both RQ2 and RQ3 imply that what you do is beat up the spirit and take the spell form it, or force it to teach it to you, and from then on the spell spirit takes no part in your casting. The new interpretations differ in that there has to be a spirit around all the time, either carried with you (spirit helper/friend/slave) or present in the enviroment (Animist). The point is that there are other mechanics for dealing with spirits: spirit combat, command spells, shamans, second sight etc. How will the spell spirits interact with these other mechanics, and how can these other abilities affect spirit magic? > A shaman teaches me how to talk to my sword. With her help it is trained > to do a 'trick' (Bladesharp 1) if I give it a reward (Magic Point). I think > this would be fine, limiting you to a special relationship with your own > sword, like having a dog. It pretty much does what you want and together > you learn new tricks, like Bladesharp 2 and Parry. Yes, but my point is: are there any _real_ spirits there? If it's all in your mind, then fine, it's just a viewpoint. If there is a real spirit then other people/spirits should be able to interact with it: in RQ a spirit has objective reality. > > As you get better at this, you can also start to talk to other swords, > perhaps using you own as a 'translator'; being a sword, it can communicate > better and get the other sword to do a 'trick' (provided your sword knows > the trick itself.) > This is another nice viewpoint on spirit magic. My problem is I think they would all lead to slightly different mechanics. > - Paul > Graeme Lindsell a.k.a gal502@huxley.anu.edu.au  0, redistributed,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA26794; Fri, 10 Sep 93 02:48:34 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA19066; Fri, 10 Sep 93 03:47:28 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 10 Sep 93 3:47:41 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Animist Trickster Spirits Date: Fri, 10 Sep 93 17:45:03 GMT Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <6DC61C73BC@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu> Graeme replying to Nick's comments on Dave's Trickster spirit magic: > I am very entertained. This lot could enhance RQ shamanic magic no end! > > Now: what about "Divine Spirit Magic" (i.e. cult spells). How can we > improve their flavour, to reflect the fact that they're what God wants you > to do and not just some straggly little guys you met and beat up on the > Spirit Plane? If your cult spirit magic possesses *any* free will of its > own, us PCs could be in for a *lot* of trouble! Yes, I was thinking about that as being a problem: the example I had in mind is a Humakti using Bladesharp (ie my own current PC): Humakti: Hmm, that new Storm Bull initiate looks like he's in trouble Hey, KeenBlade [Bladesharp 4 spirit], give him a hand. KeenBlade: An Axe! You want me to inhabit an axe? Humakti: Now! KeenBlade: Someone will be hearing about this...[off he goes] or later: Humakti: Those 3 broos have trapped Lores! I should never rely on a Yelmalion. KeenBlade, save him KeenBlade: A spear? You've got to be joking! Humakti: Quickly you vain bastard! KeenBlade: What about my temple-cred? Humakti: If you don't hurry he... bugger, too late. A GM could have hours of fun with this. Actually, should a Humakti cult Bladesharp be usable on a spear? I've wondered why Bladesharp works on both cutting and stabbing weapons. > > Not that that's a problem, of course: more a permanent scenario hook. > > ==== > Nick > ==== >  0, redistributed,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA07442; Fri, 10 Sep 93 19:06:49 -0500 Return-Path: <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA28934; Fri, 10 Sep 93 20:03:21 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 10 Sep 93 20:05:55 EDT From: Nick Brooke <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Bladesharp Spirits Date: 10 Sep 93 19:45:29 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <7E0A885DDF@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu> Graeme asked: > Actually, should a Humakti cult Bladesharp be usable on a spear? I've > wondered why Bladesharp works on both cutting and stabbing weapons. A concern I share -- see my "COMMENTS" of early June, and the ensuing discussion with Carl Fink: >> ...You should also note that spell effects vary as well as the >> names. I'm a Humakti, and have piously learned Swordsharp 4. >> Cast on a spear, this spell will have exactly NO effect: it >> isn't "Bladesharp by another name", but a different, distinct >> spell. Get people used to thinking like this and we'll have a >> lot more realism and fun in our games. } I'm not so sure we want to dramatically weaken Spirit Magic } this way. (I.e if you learn Slay Pest, you can't hurt humans or } elves.) BTW, "realism"? About Glorantha? >> Yeah. It's not "Gloranthan realism" for a Sword of Humakt to know a >> spell that's damn' good at enhancing Spear skills and damage. Else, >> why not give all warrior cults "True Weapon" rather than "True >> (Weapon)" as a Rune spell, and then trust them only to cast it on >> appropriate ones? It's nice to see all my old saws (sores?) coming back time and again... I liked your 'dialogues' in the example; they weren't *quite* what I had intended, but were fun in themselves. Good stuff. ==== Nick ====  0, redistributed,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA14102; Sat, 11 Sep 93 00:13:17 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA04322; Sat, 11 Sep 93 01:12:11 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 11 Sep 93 1:12:27 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Bladesharp Spirits Date: Sat, 11 Sep 93 15:09:51 GMT Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <833046745C@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu> > > It's nice to see all my old saws (sores?) coming back time and again... They look painful, you should see that Arroin down at the temple. > I liked your 'dialogues' in the example; they weren't *quite* what I had > intended, but were fun in themselves. Good stuff. There is a more serious point: do the spirit helpers have a personality? If the RQ3 rules of INT=points of spell then I doubt it, since even a large spell spirit is pretty dumb. Of course you could take the stand that POW determines personality, in which case they might a large spirit might have strongly held beliefs (say, about not being seen in a spear). Giving spell spirits names and personality would have its advantages and disadvantages: creating a character and her spells will take longer, but IMHO will be more colourful. If personality reduces the effectiveness of some spells (ie my previous example about Bladesharp), then some kind of advantage has to be given. A possible advantage: against hated cult enemies (ie Humakt Bladesharp when fighting Zorak Zorani, CA Healing a chaos wound etc) you get a +20% bonus to the chance of casting the spell, since the spirit actively tries to help. I may try and write up a group of advantages and disadvantages if there is any interest. If they don't have personalities then they would tend to be more "spirit slaves" or "spirit weapons" than helpers. This could vary between cults: some cults like Orlanth value freedom and individuality, and so orlanthi cult spirits would tend to have more personality; others like Yelm value order and obediance, and their spell spirits would more frequently obey but rarely help. Personality will also have a big effect on spirit matrices. It will be very difficult to use a matrix from an enemy cult. Re the Animist vs Spirit Helper versions of spirit magic: I feel that the Animist version would be closer to the Shamanic view of things, while the divine spirit spells would tend to be of the spirit helper variety. Opinions? > ==== > Nick > ==== Graeme Lindsell a.k.a gal502@huxley.anu.edu.au  0, redistributed,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA23422; Sat, 11 Sep 93 10:44:14 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA14707; Sat, 11 Sep 93 11:42:17 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 11 Sep 93 11:43:21 EDT From: burt@ptltd.com (Burton Choinski) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: SPIRIT COMBAT SUGGESTION Date: Sat, 11 Sep 93 11:38:28 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <8DB11C22F9@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu> How can we bring interest to Spirit combat? Well, the general POW wrestling is what we have now. Perhaps Spirit combat (and regular combat) can benefit from a system that adds tactics beyond just rolling? Each turn combatants get a number of points of action equal to 1/10th their Spirit Combat skill (round up). These points are divided into dice as the combatant desires, attack and defense. N points convert into an "1dN" roll. To keep it easy, only the values of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10 and 12 may be used. No more then 2 attack actions may be made, but if you make 2 attacks you can make no defensive rolls. If you make 1 or no attacks you can make as many defensive rolls as you can pay for. Obviously, a d1 roll has a value of 1. EXAMPLE: Joe Shaman (13MP, Spirit Combat 75%=8 points) takes on a spell spirit (4MP, SC 45%=5 points). The Joe's fetch has 7MP and also 8 points of action. The first turn Joe decides to use all 8 on attack, with his fetch to use 6 of it's in defending Joe. The poor spirit puts 3 into attack, 2 into defense. Joe rolls an attack damage of 7 (on 1d8), His fetch rolls a defense of 3 (on 1d6 of 3). The poor spirit rolls 3 for attack (on 1d3) and 1 for defense (on 1d2). End result, turn 1: Joe's fetch parries the spirit's attack. Joe inflicts 6 damage to the spirit, which reduces it to 0 MP...it is captured. If the spirit had gone full defensive, using it's 5 for defense, the best it could have done in this turn was roll a d5 and get a 5, reducing the damage done to it to only 2MP. Example 2: Joe is jumped by 3 ghosts. He allocates 6 for an attack on 1 ghost, leaving 2 for a defensive roll. His fetch splits his into a defend 3 and defend 4. In this case, Joe may now defend against all 3 attacks, but has a greatly reduced effectiveness. In theory, he could do 4 1d2 defenses, his fetch thring in 3 more 1d2 defenses, and defend against 7 opponents. But he obviously would be spread too thin to do much. Granted, this form of combat is more abstract, but it has the advantage of being simple and fairly fast. Additional tactics could be added that tweak the dice rolled, determine an order of attack/defense, etc. A combat "turn" cannot be defined as solidly as for physical combat, since it is abstract. When dealing with combined physical and spirit combats, perform 1 spirit turn every 1d3 physical turns. Coments? Suggestions? -- Burton  0, redistributed,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA06894; Sun, 12 Sep 93 00:34:52 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA27539; Sun, 12 Sep 93 01:29:40 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 12 Sep 93 1:34:00 EDT From: David Dunham (via RadioMail) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Bladesharp Spirits; spirit combat Date: Sat, 11 Sep 1993 22:27:39 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <9B7AF374D5@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu> >From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) > There is a more serious point: do the spirit helpers have a personality? >If the RQ3 rules of INT=points of spell then I doubt it, since even a >large spell spirit is pretty dumb. Of course you could take the stand that >POW determines personality, in which case they might a large spirit might >have strongly held beliefs (say, about not being seen in a spear). And who runs them? While I'm amused by the examples (and find them a plausible way Glorantha could work), this GM doesn't look forward to consistently playing dozens of spell spirits that the players have. Making them pretty dumb would help -- in Pendragon terms, they could have a single trait. It'd still be a lot to keep track of ("Hey, how come my Multimissile is lying to me?" "Oops, it's your Speedart that's Deceitful.") >From: burt@ptltd.com (Burton Choinski) >Well, the general POW wrestling is what we have now. Perhaps Spirit >combat (and regular combat) can benefit from a system that adds tactics >beyond just rolling? If it's simple -- at least the latest RQ4 version I've seen allows all-out actions. >Each turn combatants get a number of points of action equal to 1/10th their >Spirit Combat skill (round up). These points are divided >into dice as the combatant desires, attack and defense. N points convert >into an "1dN" roll. To keep it easy, only the values of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, >10 and 12 may be used. > >No more then 2 attack actions may be made, but if you make 2 attacks you can >make no defensive rolls. If you make 1 or no attacks you can make as many >defensive rolls as you can pay for. Obviously, a d1 roll has a value of 1. I think your rules are interesting, though they still use the Spirit Combat skill, which I think is a Bad Idea. (It's an important skill that existing RQ2 or RQ3 characters don't, and I like the flavor that anyone can learn a spell or defend against a ghost. Maybe RQ4 just used the wrong base chance? Yes, shamans should be better dealing with spirits than ordinary folk, but even in RQ3 they are, as a practical matter.)  0, redistributed,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA06311; Sun, 12 Sep 93 00:13:42 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA27141; Sun, 12 Sep 93 01:07:06 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 12 Sep 93 1:12:50 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: SPIRIT COMBAT SUGGESTION Date: Sun, 12 Sep 93 15:04:34 GMT Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <9B1A935CE2@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu> Graeme replying to Burtons Spirit Combat suggestion: > A combat "turn" cannot be defined as solidly as for physical > combat, since it is abstract. When dealing with combined physical > and spirit combats, perform 1 spirit turn every 1d3 physical turns. That last is a big problem for me: what are you meant to do for those 1d3 turns, sit around? In our games most spirit combat takes place during physical combat, when a magician releases a spirit or three on a party. Spirit-only combat is fairly rare. > > Coments? Suggestions? A bit complex for my tastes. Ordinary RQ physical combat doesn't have a wide range of options once you've chosen your weapons, so I don't see the real need to buitd a new set for spirit combat. A system like this would suit me: Spirit combat is a simplified version of physical combat. Your spirit combat skill defaults to your current MPx5% ie with 15 MP your spirit combat skill is 75%. This skill is used for both attack and defense in spirit combat. Like ordinary combat you have two actions in a round, which can be chosen from Attack (inflict spirit damage on an enemy) Defend (attempt to resist an attack) or Disengage (attempt to escape form spirit combat - only available for disembodied spirits). Attack: A successful attack roll reduces the targets MP by an amount dependent on the success of the attack: Ordinary Success: -1d3 MP Special Success : -1d6 MP Critical Success: -2d6 MP A fumbled Attack indicates that you lose 1d3 of your own MP. Defense: Spirit Defense works like Dodge in Physical Combat, by reducing the level of success of the attack. Ordinary Defense: reduces Attack 1 level (Ord -> Fail, Special -> Ord etc) Special Defense : reduces Attack 2 levels (Critical -> Ord, Spec -> Fail) Critical Defense: No MP lost. Defense can only reduce an attack to a failure, not to a fumble. A fumbled Defense indicates that you lose 1d3 of your own MP. Disengage: This is an attempt to flee spirit combat. Only disembodied spirits may attempt to disengage. To disengae in the face of an attack the spirit must achieve a success greater than that of the Attack ie if on ordinary attack was made the spirit must make a special or critical disengage. If the disengage attempt succeeds then the spirit leaves combat and takes no damage from the attack. If it fails then the spirit takes full damage. If your opponent is making no attempt to attack then the disengage needs an ordinary success or better. Optional Rule: For every 10 current MP (round down) you do 1 extra point of MP damage in an attack and take 1 less point of MP damage when struck in spirit combat (ie a spirit damage bonus of MP/10 and a spirit natural armour of MP/10). A undefended critical attack ignores spirit armour. Maybe +1 damage/armour for every 5 points might be better. If one is caught in physical and spiritual combat one must choose what actions to take from the usual pool of two actions per round. Skill: Psychic Combat. This is a skill that can only be learned by disembodied spirits or those with power to do so (ie shamans). If you have this skill then your chance for spirit combat actions can never be reduced under this skill, no matter how low your MP's drop ie Miklan Has Psychic Combat 85%. In battle with a Disease Spirit his MP are reduced to 14. This would usually give him 70% skills in spirit combat, but as he knows the skill his chance remains at 85%. (I believe OJ said that this is how the spirit combat skill works in the new draft.) With this system you can choose to take two Attacks for an all out attack, two parries for all out defense, two disengages for all out run away or any mix of the 3 options. The various spirit supporting spells would have to be re-written for this combat system: say an attack enhancing spell (Mindclaws: your spirit develops sharp, jagged edges) which adds +1 damage/+5% to attack per point, and a defense enhancing spell (Cloud Spirit: your spirit becomes vague and blurred) that adds +1 armour/+5% defense > -- Burton > Graeme Lindsell a.k.a gal502@huxley.anu.edu.au  0, redistributed,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA05953; Mon, 13 Sep 93 04:50:03 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA23212; Mon, 13 Sep 93 05:46:19 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 13 Sep 93 5:49:11 EDT From: pvanheus@cs.uct.ac.za (Peter van Heusden) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: SPIRIT COMBAT SUGGESTION Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1993 11:45:55 +0200 (SAT) Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: Hm, I dunno. I read through Burton's suggestion, and it just seemed to be combat, except with spirits, not swords. Is this really how spirit combat works? I'd rather flesh out the model first, and then try and simulate it. If I wanted to bash something over the head, I'd be a swordsman, not a shaman. Spirit combat has always seemed more like a lucid dream to me. Peter ******************************************************************************* Peter van Heusden One man one newsfeed CS3, UCT, Cape Town, RSA "but I love the setting. and the hippies pvanheus@cs.uct.ac.za will be back in the fall" Red_Guest on MediaMOO  0, redistributed,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA13347; Mon, 13 Sep 93 09:41:39 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA05940; Mon, 13 Sep 93 10:38:41 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 13 Sep 93 10:40:44 EDT From: burt@ptltd.com (Burton Choinski) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: SPIRIT COMBAT (again, try #2 :) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 93 10:34:42 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: Peter van Heusden notes... %% Hm, I dunno. I read through Burton's suggestion, and it just seemed to be %% combat, except with spirits, not swords. Is this really how spirit combat %% works? I'd rather flesh out the model first, and then try and simulate it. %% If I wanted to bash something over the head, I'd be a swordsman, not a %% shaman. Spirit combat has always seemed more like a lucid dream to me. Well, preferably spirit combat is more then just "arm-wrestling" or "knife-fighting" by another name. Perhaps we can just get the Spirit combat skill out of it? =============================================================================== SCUFFLE (Spirit Combat Under Free-Form Listed Elements :) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ATTACKS (1) Lunge You strike out with your essance with speed and power in an attempt to spear the target. Does 1d6 per 10MP on sucess. (2) Sweep An attack that cuts across the middle of the target, from side to side. Does 1d3 per 10MP on success. (3) Chop An overhead stroke that goes for power at some loss of speed. Does 1d4 per 10MP on success. . . . DEFENSES (1) Retreat You pull back your essance to prevent it's being damaged. Nullifies a lunge, sweep or chop, but you may make no counter attack. (2) Dodge You move to the side to prevent the strike from hitting you. Nullifies a Lunge or Dodge. (3) Parry You firm up your essance in an attempt to sweep aside an attack. 1d6 defense against Lunge or Chop attacks (reduces damage taken), 1d3 vs. Sweep attacks. . . . =============================================================================== You get the idea. The above maneuvers are just off the top of my head and would need to be expanded on and cleaned up. The numbers are for GM ease if he wishes to just roll the spirit's attack or defense, or alternately can choose. Both sides choose their forms, then go at it. Ideally, some maneuvers do great damage, but either leave you open for an easy counter-strike, or take a round to recover or something. A good variety of strikes, feints, blocks, parries, etc would be best. -- Burton  0, redistributed,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA02697; Mon, 13 Sep 93 01:08:14 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA21196; Mon, 13 Sep 93 02:04:11 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 13 Sep 93 2:07:19 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Spirit Combat Date: Mon, 13 Sep 93 16:01:47 GMT Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: My suggested spirit combat posting yesterday contains a conceptual flaw. One product of the resistance table is that a spirit with MP greater than 9 points above its opponents is effectively immune to their attacks, no matter how much it is outnumbered. The system of assigning attacks/defenses as in physical combat means that being outnumbered has the same results: you have little chance. In yesterdays system, 3 POW 10 spirits would probably beat 1 POW 20 spirit. This is very different from the way RQ3 spirit combats evolve, probably too much so. The optional rules of giving natural "spirit" armour could correct this though. Graeme Lindsell a.k.a gal502@huxley.anu.edu.au  0, redistributed,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA20441; Mon, 13 Sep 93 11:44:02 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA13616; Mon, 13 Sep 93 12:41:09 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 13 Sep 93 12:43:06 EDT From: David Dunham (via RadioMail) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: SPIRIT COMBAT (again try #2 :) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1993 09:38:41 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: > SCUFFLE (Spirit Combat Under Free-Form Listed Elements :) > (1) Lunge > (2) Sweep > (3) Chop > (1) Retreat > (2) Dodge > (3) Parry Instead of a table that has to be consulted or memorized, why not just choose Rock, Scissors, Paper each round? You'd still roll the resistance table, but the winner would get a) +10 on the RT; b) +1 damage, even if he loses on the RT. David Dunham * Software Designer * Pensee Corporation Voice/Fax: 206-783-7404 * AppleLink: DDUNHAM * Internet: ddunham@radiomail.net  0, redistributed,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA21063; Mon, 13 Sep 93 11:55:32 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA14237; Mon, 13 Sep 93 12:52:47 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 13 Sep 93 12:54:37 EDT From: burt@ptltd.com (Burton Choinski) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: SPIRIT COMBAT (again try #2 :) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 93 12:49:05 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: %% Instead of a table that has to be consulted or memorized, why not just %% choose Rock, Scissors, Paper each round? You'd still roll the resistance %% table, but the winner would get a) +10 on the RT; b) +1 damage, even if he %% loses on the RT. That could work as well, but I figured there would be more then three attack or defense types, including some maneuvers that do not directly attack the target but set you up for a better chance the next time (i.e. feints). But I see your point about having too many maneuvers. -Burton  0, redistributed,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA24983; Mon, 13 Sep 93 12:43:10 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA16809; Mon, 13 Sep 93 13:40:25 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 13 Sep 93 13:42:15 EDT From: Malcolm Cohen To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: SPIRIT COMBAT (again^] try #2 :) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 93 18:39:30 MET Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: > Instead of a table that has to be consulted or memorized, why not just > choose Rock, Scissors, Paper each round? You'd still roll the resistance I hate it. You might just as well flip a (three-sided) coin and say the result. And having the effects being always the same makes it completely flavourless. If we want options for Spirit Combat, let us have meaningful ones; ones which we can sensibly choose to last out vs a more powerful opponent or to sweep aside some fledgling spirit that gets in the way. So, what do we want Spirit Combat to look like? There are a number of possibilities: (i) spirits are visible entities in the real world, they are just like monsters with special powers. This is how it has been presented at least once in previous RQ's, with players casting Bladesharp et al to combat spirits. Lots of possibilities for tactics here! (ii) spirits are only on the spirit plane, though possibly tied to an object which possibly is on both physical and spiritual planes; (a) spirit combat is like a mysterious attack from nowhere, the victim just feels some sort of "spiritual" pressure or whatever. So combat would be some sort of straight-forward battle of wills, reasonably modelled by RQ3 S.C. rules. (b) by engaging the victim in spirit combat he becomes partially functional on the spirit plane. (alpha) the local part of the spirit plane (around the spirit and the victim becomes visible to the victim, as does the spirit). Don't like this idea much as it does not penalise the spirit-blind enough, but it might work. Tactics possible, e.g. like RQ4 (draft 2) S.C., perhaps modified. (beta) the combat takes place in a sort of dream-bubble of the spirit world existing around the spirit. Combat is like fighting a monster in a dream-world (so one has dream-like powers?). Interesting possibilities for tactics here, have to think more about this one. I actually do not mind (ii)(a) for handling S.C. attacks on the spirit-blind. For those who can see the spirit-plane (ii)(b)(alpha) might be a good way to handle it. -- ...........................Malcolm Cohen, NAG Ltd., Oxford, U.K. (malcolm@nag.co.uk)  0, redistributed,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA10172; Mon, 13 Sep 93 15:59:11 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA26746; Mon, 13 Sep 93 16:56:21 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 13 Sep 93 16:58:15 EDT From: pk18@prism.gatech.edu To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: 6w,nFr Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1993 16:56:06 -0400 Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: A long time ago our RQ group developed a dislike of strike ranks and adopted (read: shamelessly stole) the combat advantage system used in Skyrealms of Jorune. This system (dubbed JoRunequest) is yet another interesting mutation of the RQ 3 system. With apologies to the RQLite crowd (who would like to simplify game mechanics), here's the idea: At the start of each combat round (which are now 2 sec. long), PCs and NPCs roll a d20 and add various modifiers. The result determines what the character can do in the round and the order of actions (highest advantage goes first) as per the following table: Melee or Spell: 1 - 5 One shield parry only (no action if shield is not carried) 6 - 10 One defensive action only 11 - 15 One action at full skill, another at half skill (be they offensive or defensive) 16 - 19 Two actions at full skill 20+ Two actions at skill + 25% Missile: 1 - 5 Dodge only 6 - 19 Attack or dodge 20+ Attack and dodge + 25% A roll of 1 may not be increased (insuring that even the best fighter will sometimes be distracted by invisible gerbils or whatever) and a die roll of 20 may not be decreased. Advantage modifier are: For skill value of attack, dodge or spell used: Skill % 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 for each +10 Melee -5 -2 +0 +1 +1 +2 +2 +3 +3 +4 +5 +1 Missile -4 -2 +0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +1 For armor: Armor covering legs and/or arms: -1 Metal armor on body only : -2 Metal armor on body and/or legs : -3 For SIZ and DEX: SIZ or DEX value 1 - 9 10 - 15 16 - 19 20 - 21 Modifier -1 +0 +1 +2 There are some other modifiers that have to do with defender prone, etc. which are not as useful, but I will send them to anyone who's interested. We also adopted some Jorune maneuvers, such as feint (subtracts 25% from your attack skill and 20% from your opponents defense skill). Though the advantage (or, as its known by some, the disadvantage) system may seem to add a lot of complexity, it actually cuts down the number of die rolls per round as insuring that low skilled individuals will act less often (and sometimes not at all). TTFN Paul Kemper  0, redistributed,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA24069; Mon, 13 Sep 93 21:21:57 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA07922; Mon, 13 Sep 93 22:19:12 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 13 Sep 93 22:21:01 EDT From: David Dunham (via RadioMail) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: SPIRIT COMBAT (again^] try #2 :) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1993 19:16:59 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: >Malcolm Cohen >So, what do we want Spirit Combat to look like? >There are a number of possibilities: > ... > (beta) the combat takes place in a sort of dream-bubble of the spirit > world existing around the spirit. Combat is like fighting a > monster in a dream-world (so one has dream-like powers?). > Interesting possibilities for tactics here, have to think more > about this one. This removes the idea that you can run away from a ghost, since you're suddenly in a dream world. >From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) > Rock, Scissors, Paper resolution. RQ already has three separate >resolution systems: skill vs skill (currently higher roll in the >same success category wins), attack/parry (greatest success wins, >and parry always has advantage over attack) and the resistance table >(simple success/failure based on matching stats). I don't think we >really need a whole different system just for spirit combat. IMHO it >isn't that big a part of the game, with the exception of shamans, >who IMHO (again) should get their rewards more from roleplaying >their encounters with spirits than fighting them. I completely agree that spirit combat is minor and doesn't need a separate system. (A more complex and flavorful system could be in the Rules Companion book of optional rules -- BTW I just remembered that Star Wars had such a volume, and doesn't seem to be hurt by it.) (I proposed R-S-P largely as a way to remember Burton's stuff.) > In keeping with the idea of compatibility with RQ3 I think that just >adding extra damage to spirit combat would work ie 1d3 ordinary success, >1d6 special, 2d6 critical. It would give weaker spirits a bit more of a >chance. Doesn't this add crits and specials to the resistance table? What I liked best about RQ2 spirits was not spirit combat (you may not have had many options, but you did have to decide how long to keep fighting), but the article in Different Worlds. I loved having crab spirits, rock spirits, etc. (I've heard this may come back to RQ4.) David Dunham * Software Designer * Pensee Corporation Voice/Fax: 206-783-7404 * AppleLink: DDUNHAM * Internet: ddunham@radiomail.net  0, redistributed,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA00715; Tue, 14 Sep 93 01:43:02 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA12985; Tue, 14 Sep 93 02:40:13 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 14 Sep 93 2:42:08 EDT From: davidc@cs.uwa.edu.au (David Cake) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: SPIRIT COMBAT (again^] try #2 :) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 93 14:39:28 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: > > So, what do we want Spirit Combat to look like? > There are a number of possibilities: > (i) spirits are visible entities in the real world, they are just like monsters > (ii) spirits are only on the spirit plane, though possibly tied to an object > which possibly is on both physical and spiritual planes; > (a) spirit combat is like a mysterious attack from nowhere, the victim > (b) by engaging the victim in spirit combat he becomes partially functional > ' [Much detail deleted] I do not see any reason to change the existing description of how the relationship between the spirit plane/spirits/spirit combat works, even if we do change the mechanics a great deal. The current system if that spirits dwell on the spirit plane, spirits that are tied to material things (ie alive or bound) are on the material plane rather than the spirit. To attack such a spirit (ie a live PC) a spirit must manifest on the material plane - either as an ability that it has, or by casting a Visibility spell. This act of manifestation ties it to the mundane plane enough for it to become visible. Alternatively, to attack a spirit that has not manifested (or one that has run away, returning to the spirit plane) your spirit must break its ties to the material plane - by discorporation. Obviously spirits are not one the material plane all the time. If they are one the spirit plane all the time, one of the two scenarios above must occur - either it comes without warning, or worse, drags you to the spirit plane with it. I think spirits must change which plane they are most associated with to attack. > -- > ...........................Malcolm Cohen, NAG Ltd., Oxford, U.K. > (malcolm@nag.co.uk) > Dave Cake  0, redistributed,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA01349; Tue, 14 Sep 93 02:15:04 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA13489; Tue, 14 Sep 93 03:12:20 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 14 Sep 93 3:14:11 EDT From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Spirit Combat Date: Tue, 14 Sep 93 02:12:08 -0500 Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: I guess I'm in the minority on this list, but I preferred the rules for spirit combat in the 2nd draft of the playtest over the 3rd edition rules, so did those of my players who have used them with me. As to the question of 3rd-edition characters who don't have a spirit combat skill, screw 'em. NOBODY in my playtest group has EVER played the third edition of RQ except me, and only ONE of them (out of a total of ten or eleven) has played the 2nd edition. The vast majority of the players have NEVER played RQ even ONCE, and only me and the RQ2 veteran had ever even HEARD of the game!!!!! Put that statistic in yer pipes and smoke it for a while.  0, redistributed,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA02938; Tue, 14 Sep 93 04:29:52 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA15836; Tue, 14 Sep 93 05:27:01 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 14 Sep 93 5:28:58 EDT From: pearton@unpsun1.cc.unp.ac.za (Dave Pearton) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: SPIRIT COMBAT (again^] try #2 :) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1993 11:26:16 +0200 (GMT+0200) Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Content-Type: text X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: Graeme A Lindsell writes: > > Graeme replying to Burton and David: > > > > > SCUFFLE (Spirit Combat Under Free-Form Listed Elements :) > > > (1) Lunge > > > (2) Sweep > > > (3) Chop > > I don't think that we should introduce combat options into spirit > combat that aren't in ordinary combat. The RQ combat system doesn't > resolve physical combat using this kind of detail, it's abstracted into > the roll. If they are introduced into spirit combat, the next logical > step is to put them into physical combat. > > I msut agree with Graeme here. IMHO spirit interaction in all of the RQ's has been hampered by the whole concept of spirit interaction as "combat". As one who really enjoys shamans and who has an interest in real world shamanism I feel that the emphasis has been to much on the combat aspects. I feel that it would add much more to the game if instead of finding ways to complicate the spirit combat rules we could spend more time on the non-combat orientated aspect of spirit interaction. While I'm sure that David will say that these should go in a companion ;) I am of the persuasion that this strategy would not work. (For reasons I'll go into later.) Thus while the spirit plane is simply at the moment a featureless place for shamans to go and plunder I would like to see more interaction on a role-playing level with the spirits than is current. In my campaigns spirit combat is a last resort after all other option of interactions have been exhausted. > isn't that big a part of the game, with the exception of shamans, > who IMHO (again) should get their rewards more from roleplaying > their encounters with spirits than fighting them. > While in my campaigns I generally have a fairly high profile spirit plane/ normal world interaction I must strongly agree with Graeme's sentiments here. > In keeping with the idea of compatibility with RQ3 I think that just > adding extra damage to spirit combat would work ie 1d3 ordinary success, > 1d6 special, 2d6 critical. It would give weaker spirits a bit more of a > chance. > I also think that it is very NB to give weaker spirits a chance in order to emphasise the role playing aspects. If your shaman always has a niggling doubt as to whether he can lose or not then he will be more inclined (IMHO) to look for other methods than simple combat of interacting with the spirits. > Graeme Lindsell a.k.a gal502@huxley.anu.edu.au > > Oh, I said that I would voice my doubts over the "companion" strategy of marketing. In the more out of the way places, such as S.A., it is really hell to try and get hold of RQ stuff. I for one find it much easier to persuade people and shops to order one item rather than a plethora of smaller items that they do not know whether they would sell or not. I think that a single (possibly modular) rulebook is a better way to go, although I personally prefer a full-fledged rule system to a "RQ-Lite". Just my opinion ;) Yak -- *********************************************************************** Dave Pearton * ....As I was saying before I Biochemistry Dept. * was so rudely interrupted University of Natal * by one of my multiple Pietermaritzburg * personalities.... * pearton@unpsun1.cc.unp.ac.za * Naked Lunch (W.S. Burroughs) ************************************************************************  0, redistributed,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA04035; Tue, 14 Sep 93 05:51:22 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA17095; Tue, 14 Sep 93 06:48:38 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 14 Sep 93 6:50:30 EDT From: Malcolm Cohen To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: JoRuneQuest (was 6w,nFr) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 93 11:46:59 MET Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: I do not like this for several reasons, (1) I like strike ranks (2) it is too much extra complication for (it seems to me) too little gain. > Though the advantage (or, as its known by some, the disadvantage) system > may seem to add a lot of complexity, it actually cuts down the number of > die rolls per round as insuring that low skilled individuals will act less > often (and sometimes not at all). In this case I really HATE it. Having recently played C&S combat with a low level character, the interminable waiting around while the 6th level fighter got through his multiple actions all mixed up with various other group members was almost intolerable; by the time one got to act one had (a) forgotten what was going on in one's immediate vicinity and (b) did not really care any more since one could not make any impact on the outcome of the melee. How much do I hate it? I would refuse to ref it and would be extremely reluctant to be a player in a game with it. -- ...........................Malcolm Cohen, NAG Ltd., Oxford, U.K. (malcolm@nag.co.uk)  0, redistributed,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA20961; Mon, 13 Sep 93 19:55:15 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA05606; Mon, 13 Sep 93 20:52:28 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 13 Sep 93 20:54:21 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: SPIRIT COMBAT (again^] try #2 :) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 93 10:50:06 GMT Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: Graeme replying to Burton and David: > > > SCUFFLE (Spirit Combat Under Free-Form Listed Elements :) > > (1) Lunge > > (2) Sweep > > (3) Chop I don't think that we should introduce combat options into spirit combat that aren't in ordinary combat. The RQ combat system doesn't resolve physical combat using this kind of detail, it's abstracted into the roll. If they are introduced into spirit combat, the next logical step is to put them into physical combat. Rock, Scissors, Paper resolution. RQ already has three separate resolution systems: skill vs skill (currently higher roll in the same success category wins), attack/parry (greatest success wins, and parry always has advantage over attack) and the resistance table (simple success/failure based on matching stats). I don't think we really need a whole different system just for spirit combat. IMHO it isn't that big a part of the game, with the exception of shamans, who IMHO (again) should get their rewards more from roleplaying their encounters with spirits than fighting them. In keeping with the idea of compatibility with RQ3 I think that just adding extra damage to spirit combat would work ie 1d3 ordinary success, 1d6 special, 2d6 critical. It would give weaker spirits a bit more of a chance. Graeme Lindsell a.k.a gal502@huxley.anu.edu.au  0, redistributed,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA06801; Tue, 14 Sep 93 08:12:55 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA24046; Tue, 14 Sep 93 09:10:00 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 14 Sep 93 9:12:00 EDT From: burt@ptltd.com (Burton Choinski) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Befuddle in RQ4 Date: Tue, 14 Sep 93 09:06:14 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: In Powers & Perils there as a spell called "Abandon" which caused the target to forget what he was doing and wander aimlessly, lost in awe of the world around him. This spell had a duration, but upon being attacked the spell would dissapate (presumably, the "Fight or Flight" reflex allows you to shrug off the effect :), although you were considered suprised on that attack. You could operate normally thereafter (if you were still alive, that is.) -- Burton  0, redistributed,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA07003; Tue, 14 Sep 93 08:19:43 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA24406; Tue, 14 Sep 93 09:16:59 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 14 Sep 93 9:18:49 EDT From: burt@ptltd.com (Burton Choinski) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: SPIRIT COMBAT (again^] try #2 :) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 93 09:13:13 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: I think I sugested it a while ago, might mot have made it out, that Spirit Combat should only be Combat in the sense of the spirit involved. If you are fighting a ghost or something, with possession of your body at stake, yea I think it is combat of sorts. But when trying to learn a cult spirit spell, I don't think it is. I have been impressing on my players that learning a spell is related to the basic cult...Tricksters and the spirit spell really deal in a war of jokes, and Their spirit combat should be INTx5 or perhaps their Fasttalk skill. An Issiaries (sp?) tries to out haggle his spirit for the best deal, and thus uses bargain. Spirit Combat should only be used to fight of possessions and the like...you don't use it to learn spirit spells. -- Burton  0, redistributed,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA26181; Mon, 13 Sep 93 22:26:54 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA09541; Mon, 13 Sep 93 23:23:52 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 13 Sep 93 23:25:53 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: SPIRIT COMBAT (again^] try #2 :) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 93 13:21:29 GMT Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: David Dunham asks: > Doesn't this add crits and specials to the resistance table? They are already there for some Divine Magic. Madness and Turn Undead both have results dependent upon the MP vs. MP roll. I wouldn't mind seeing the concept expanded to other areas using the resistance table. > but the article in Different Worlds. I loved having crab spirits, rock > spirits, etc. (I've heard this may come back to RQ4.) I never saw that article but it sounds nice. I think it would be more worthwhile to add personality to the spirits rather than to spend time expanding spirit combat. Graeme Lindsell a.k.a gal502@huxley.anu.edu.au  0, redistributed,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA00189; Tue, 14 Sep 93 01:07:14 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA12536; Tue, 14 Sep 93 02:04:23 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 14 Sep 93 2:06:21 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Befuddle in RQ4 Date: Tue, 14 Sep 93 16:01:49 GMT Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: Idea for a new thread: Befuddle I'm not very happy with the new Bufuddle presented in the RQ4 Draft 2.0. While it corrects the major problem with the spell in RQ3 [that is was so much more effective than Demoralize, even though they had the same cost] it does this by making Befuddle practically identical with Demoralize. If this solution is used I don't see the point of having two separate spells: if they have the same cost and nearly identical effects they may as well be the same spell. Can anyone think of a better version of Befuddle? The RQ3 version was too crippling: the basic way to beat intelligent enemies was to cast Befuddle at them. Pretty much the same for RQ2, you just Befuddle them all and then attack them one at a time. Here are a couple of ideas, neither of which I really like: i) Befuddle's effect is the same as RQ3, you stand there doing nothing. At the statement of intent each round after the one in which you were befuddled you try and roll less than Int*5%. If you succeed you can act normally for the round, if you fail you stand there wondering what to do. If attacked during that round you may attempt to parry/dodge instinctively, but neither attack nor cast spells. If the Int*5 roll is a special (ie you roll under INT*1) then you realize you've been Befuddled and can attempt to dispel it. If you fumble the Int*5 roll then you act against your allies for that round: you have confused your friends and your enemies. Basically, this version gives a 1/3 chance of doing nothing each round for the average INT 13 human. I'm not sure whether the "instinctive parry" rule should be there: I think standing around confused in battle should be fairly dangerous. ii) When Befuddled you only get one action each round ie attack or parry or dodge etc. During the statement of intent each round, try and roll int*1%, if you succeed you realize your befuddled and can attempt to dispel it. This has the appeal of simplicity, but not much else. :-( Can anyone think of any better Befuddles? Does anyone agree with me about the current one. This may seem pretty minor but I think as one of the 4 spirit magic attack spells it should be condsidered fairly important. Graeme Lindsell a.k.a gal502@huxley.anu.edu.au  0, redistributed,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA12587; Tue, 14 Sep 93 19:48:51 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01017; Tue, 14 Sep 93 20:45:10 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 14 Sep 93 20:47:10 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Befuddle in RQ4 Date: Wed, 15 Sep 93 10:42:43 GMT Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: > > In Powers & Perils there as a spell called "Abandon" which caused the target [Description Deleted] > You could operate normally thereafter (if you were still alive, that is.) > -- Burton > This sounds fairly similar to RQ2 Befuddle (as I remember it, I've got RQ2 but play RQ3). The tactic of choice is then to Befuddle as many as possible so they are wandering around helpless and then to attack them one at time. Graeme  0, redistributed,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA21572; Wed, 15 Sep 93 23:32:20 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA28993; Thu, 16 Sep 93 00:29:32 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 16 Sep 93 0:31:25 EDT From: Brent Krupp To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Befuddle Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1993 21:21:08 -0700 (PDT) Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: Graeme speaks of an idea for a variable Befuddle and maybe a variable Disrupt. Both seem reasonable and compare well in power to the current spells. In fact, at two points, the variable Befuddle might be weaker the the 'real' one, which only recommends it. However, I think a danger in creating variable spells is that one must carefully consider what happens at the upper limit of size. That is where game balance can begin to fray. Currently there is no terribly destructive spirit spell, because the attack spells are non-stackable and the stackable ones are relatively benign (even Multimissle isn't too bad as several arrows which all fail to penetrate good armor are no worse than one). The problem with the variable spells is that big guys like shamans or even powergaming PCs can use them up in the 8 or 10 point range. Sure it costs the MP, but at that scale the Befuddle all but kills the guy (-100% to rolls makes you monster-helpless, and the spell can barely be dispelled and will break most magic defenses) and the Disrupt can blow off limbs and such. You may think that this is extreme, but that is where the game breaks down due to rule changes. All-in-all, spirit magic should probably stay the most harmless magic, even in the hands of shamans. Else we would have the problem we have with sorcery where the big spells are quite destructive (and some more than you think... re-examine what something like Hinder 10 does... its a paralysis spell since the guy can only move 1 m/SR running and gets a +5 DEX SR). fletcher@u.washington.edu (Brent Krupp)  0, redistributed,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA25544; Thu, 16 Sep 93 02:07:37 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01697; Thu, 16 Sep 93 03:04:50 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 16 Sep 93 3:06:42 EDT From: David Dunham (via RadioMail) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Befuddle Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1993 00:01:53 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: >From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) > This spell causes the target to become confused and disoriented, >imparing ability and judgement. The game effect is to give a -10% >penalty to all actions per point of Befuddle, except those which do >not require mental function, such as Con rolls or MP resistance >rolls. This would be OK, tho I'd suggest making it more like -30% per point (otherwise Befuddling a Rune Lord would have little difference). (Brent, I think it's OK to disable someone with Befuddle -- it happens now.) Hmm, altho it's probably too much trouble to work out the bonuses, why not have it be -10 to INT? And have similar spells which affect stats other than INT... > Making it stackable wouldn't cause much trouble, just all people >from RQ3 products would have Befuddle 2. A -20% penalty to all >actions (attack, parry, spell casting, ride) seems fairly nasty >without being totally crippling. Some of the other spirit magic >attack spell could be made stackable as well ie Disruption: >the first point of disruption does 1d3 damage, each point added >to the spell increases the dice roll by the number of mp extra >2 point disruption =1d4, 4 point = 1d6, 6 point = 1d8. The more >powerful Disrupts would be less efficient in causing damage. A reasonable way to work it, tho a Disrupt 6 pretty much takes out a hit location... David Dunham * Software Designer * Pensee Corporation Voice/Fax: 206-783-7404 * AppleLink: DDUNHAM * Internet: ddunham@radiomail.net  0, redistributed,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA14510; Wed, 15 Sep 93 19:52:35 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA23453; Wed, 15 Sep 93 20:49:33 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 15 Sep 93 20:51:40 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Befuddle Date: Thu, 16 Sep 93 10:48:55 GMT Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: Another possible Befuddle: Ranged, Stackable, Temporal: This spell causes the target to become confused and disoriented, imparing ability and judgement. The game effect is to give a -10% penalty to all actions per point of Befuddle, except those which do not require mental function, such as Con rolls or MP resistance rolls. Making it stackable wouldn't cause much trouble, just all people from RQ3 products would have Befuddle 2. A -20% penalty to all actions (attack, parry, spell casting, ride) seems fairly nasty without being totally crippling. Some of the other spirit magic attack spell could be made stackable as well ie Disruption: the first point of disruption does 1d3 damage, each point added to the spell increases the dice roll by the number of mp extra 2 point disruption =1d4, 4 point = 1d6, 6 point = 1d8. The more powerful Disrupts would be less efficient in causing damage. Opinions, Thoughts, Flames... Graeme Lindsell a.k.a gal502@huxley.anu.edu.au  0, redistributed,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA03363; Thu, 16 Sep 93 08:28:04 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA11572; Thu, 16 Sep 93 09:25:09 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 16 Sep 93 9:27:04 EDT From: burt@ptltd.com (Burton Choinski) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: SPIRIT MAGIC Date: Thu, 16 Sep 93 09:20:58 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <1036BC81AF6@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu> David Dunham on befuddle..... %% >From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) %% > This spell causes the target to become confused and disoriented, %% >imparing ability and judgement. The game effect is to give a -10% %% >penalty to all actions per point of Befuddle, except those which do %% >not require mental function, such as Con rolls or MP resistance %% >rolls. %% %% This would be OK, tho I'd suggest making it more like -30% per point %% (otherwise Befuddling a Rune Lord would have little difference). (Brent, I %% think it's OK to disable someone with Befuddle -- it happens now.) Aieeeee! Way too much. I think, to be at least marginally consistant, a -15% is fine. Two reasons: a) Silence (I think) uses a 15% modification b) the RQ4 levels are in 15% jumps, so for ease in dealing with NPCs, 1 level of Befuddle reduces a Master to expert, Expert to Average, etc. %% Hmm, altho it's probably too much trouble to work out the bonuses, why not %% have it be -10 to INT? And have similar spells which affect stats other %% than INT... Actually, I think it would be better to base it on the Skill bases: DUMBFOUND: -15%/pt to Knowledge Skills JITTERS: -15%/pt to Agility Skills FUMBLEFINGERS: -15%/pt to Manipulation SKills STUTTER: -15%/pt to Communication Skills DIMSIGHT: -15%/pt to Perception Skills CLUMBSYFOOT: -15%/pt to Stealth Skills Supposedly, a DULLMIND spell to affect Magic skills could also be argued. It would hurt anyone by Divine spell users. There would be the opposite helping spells that would negate the above 7, or add 15%/pt (up to DOUBLE base skill). -- Burton  0, redistributed,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA22251; Fri, 17 Sep 93 02:16:47 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA17432; Fri, 17 Sep 93 03:14:01 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 17 Sep 93 3:15:52 EDT From: pearton@unpsun1.cc.unp.ac.za (Dave Pearton) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: SPIRIT MAGIC Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1993 17:14:23 +0200 (GMT+0200) Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Content-Type: text X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <1153CD3033B@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu> Burton Choinski writes: > > David Dunham on befuddle..... > %% >From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) > %% > This spell causes the target to become confused and disoriented, > %% >imparing ability and judgement. The game effect is to give a -10% > %% >penalty to all actions per point of Befuddle, except those which do > %% >not require mental function, such as Con rolls or MP resistance > %% >rolls. > %% > %% This would be OK, tho I'd suggest making it more like -30% per point > %% (otherwise Befuddling a Rune Lord would have little difference). (Brent, I > %% think it's OK to disable someone with Befuddle -- it happens now.) > > Aieeeee! Way too much. I think, to be at least marginally consistant, > a -15% is fine. Two reasons: > a) Silence (I think) uses a 15% modification > b) the RQ4 levels are in 15% jumps, so for ease in dealing with > NPCs, 1 level of Befuddle reduces a Master to expert, Expert to > Average, etc. > I think that 15% is too high and endorse the 10% if anything. > > Actually, I think it would be better to base it on the Skill bases: > > DUMBFOUND: -15%/pt to Knowledge Skills > JITTERS: -15%/pt to Agility Skills > FUMBLEFINGERS: -15%/pt to Manipulation SKills > STUTTER: -15%/pt to Communication Skills > DIMSIGHT: -15%/pt to Perception Skills > CLUMBSYFOOT: -15%/pt to Stealth Skills > > Supposedly, a DULLMIND spell to affect Magic skills could also be argued. > It would hurt anyone by Divine spell users. > I think that these tend to drift away from the idea behind the befuddle spell. But as a new class of generice spirit spells they are not so bad. I still feel that 15% is too much, not so much in these cases as above though. > There would be the opposite helping spells that would negate the above > 7, or add 15%/pt (up to DOUBLE base skill). > Now these I can see as being far too powerful. Possibly we could have a spell like these for enhanceing individual skills, but whole categories of skills? No way! > -- Burton > Yak -- *********************************************************************** Dave Pearton * ....As I was saying before I Biochemistry Dept. * was so rudely interrupted University of Natal * by one of my multiple Pietermaritzburg * personalities.... * pearton@unpsun1.cc.unp.ac.za * Naked Lunch (W.S. Burroughs) ************************************************************************  0, redistributed,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA23190; Thu, 16 Sep 93 00:19:43 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA00226; Thu, 16 Sep 93 01:16:55 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 16 Sep 93 1:18:47 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Befuddle Date: Thu, 16 Sep 93 15:15:31 GMT Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: Brent writes: > However, I think a danger in creating variable spells is that one must > carefully consider what happens at the upper limit of size. That is where > game balance can begin to fray. Currently there is no terribly destructive > spirit spell, because the attack spells are non-stackable and the Actually, there is: Bladesharp. Bladesharp 8 can be very effective in ruining the day of even very tough enemies. The stackable Befuddle is quite powerful, but given a choice which would you have: a) Bladesharp 8 b) Countermagic 8 c) Protection 8 d) Shimmer 8 e) Befuddle 8 ? To me as a shaman e) would be last: I'd prefer to use all of the others first (at a cost of 32 MP, mind: even strong shamans are starting to run a bt low by then). The problem of unlimited stacking of spirit magic has been discussed on this list before. One proposed solution which I liked was to provide cult limits on the stacking of spirit magic spells: those which were central to the cult, such as Heal for Chalan Arroy or Bladesharp for Humakt, would have very high or no limits. Those which are of less significance ie Heal for Humakt, would have lower limits ie 2-4. The justification is that Humakt is not really a powerful source of heal spell spirits. I would like to see this in RQ4 and/or RQ3 Rules companion. > one). The problem with the variable spells is that big guys like shamans > or even powergaming PCs can use them up in the 8 or 10 point range. Sure > it costs the MP, but at that scale the Befuddle all but kills the guy The problem with 10 point attack spells is that you have to overcome the MP of the target: if you fail, you can easily blow all 10 MP. With the ability boosting spells like Bladesharp you don't have that problem. Also Befuddle 10 has to be cast in combat, and will take at least 11 SR. Bladesharp and the defensive spells can be cast beforehand. > dispelled and will break most magic defenses) and the Disrupt can blow off > limbs and such. You may think that this is extreme, but that is where the The Disrupt spell is not as powerful as it looks: a 1 pt disrupt does 1d3 damage, average 2; an 8 point disrupt does 1d10, average 5.5. Since the added points add to dice size rather than directly to damage, the spell damage approaches 1/2 of the MPs in the spell in the extreme limit. A powergaming player will probably choose Disrupt 2 (1d4) or Disrupt 4 (1d6) as the best yields. I think the same would be true of Befuddle, you don't want to spend to much time and MP's on the spell. It would probably be used in the highest strengths only by GM's for plot purposes (ie making damn sure the entire party is captured etc) > All-in-all, spirit magic should probably stay the most harmless magic, > even in the hands of shamans. Else we would have the problem we have with I disagree here. Shamans have a distinct lack of useful attack spells compared with both priests and sorcerers. The advantage lies purely in the spirits. > think... re-examine what something like Hinder 10 does... its a paralysis > spell since the guy can only move 1 m/SR running and gets a +5 DEX SR). Slow 10 would have a similar effect, and can reduce movement to zero can't it? > fletcher@u.washington.edu (Brent Krupp) Graeme Lindsell a.k.a gal502@huxley.anu.edu.au  0, redistributed,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA26023; Thu, 16 Sep 93 02:37:59 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA02062; Thu, 16 Sep 93 03:35:08 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 16 Sep 93 3:37:00 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Befuddle Date: Thu, 16 Sep 93 17:34:43 GMT Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: David writes: > This would be OK, tho I'd suggest making it more like -30% per point > (otherwise Befuddling a Rune Lord would have little difference). (Brent, I Too me, that's a feature. People with 120%+ skills should have some advantages for mastering a skill. Immunity to negative modfiers is the only real advantage. -30% is way too high. This idea came from the sorcery Glow spell, which can be used to blind enemies, taking -20% off their skills. When I played a sorcerer (some years ago), I found it a useful but not all destroying spell. To people with 60-80% combat skills -10% per point is fairly bad. It also makes the size of an effective Beffudle scale with the party's skill: to a beginning party with 30-50% skill Befuddle 1-2 can give you an edge over your enemies; for a party of Rune Lords Befuddle 4-6 becomes needed. > think it's OK to disable someone with Befuddle -- it happens now.) > The problem now is it's too easy to disable someone with Befuddle. > A reasonable way to work it, tho a Disrupt 6 pretty much takes out a hit > location... A disrupt 6 does an average of 4.5 damage, which a Heal 5 can repair: it's less effective to harm with a Disrupt above 2 (3 if your GM will allow 1d5) than it is to Heal it back up. > David Dunham * Software Designer * Pensee Corporation Graeme Lindsell a.k.a gal502@huxley.anu.edu.au  0, redistributed,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA04762; Thu, 16 Sep 93 17:26:26 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA06302; Thu, 16 Sep 93 18:23:19 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 16 Sep 93 18:25:29 EDT From: David Dunham (via RadioMail) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: SPIRIT MAGIC Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1993 15:20:15 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <10C64220D84@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu> >From: burt@ptltd.com (Burton Choinski) > Actually, I think it would be better to base it on the Skill bases: > > DUMBFOUND: -15%/pt to Knowledge Skills > JITTERS: -15%/pt to Agility Skills > FUMBLEFINGERS: -15%/pt to Manipulation SKills > STUTTER: -15%/pt to Communication Skills > DIMSIGHT: -15%/pt to Perception Skills > CLUMBSYFOOT: -15%/pt to Stealth Skills This is interesting (though still a wrenching change for RQ2/RQ3 Befuddle knowers). I do like making use of the categories -- if the game has to have them (I'm not sure it does...), they should be used more. > There would be the opposite helping spells that would negate the above > 7, or add 15%/pt (up to DOUBLE base skill). This doesn't seem consistent with spells like Bladesharp, that affect only a single skill, and +5% at that (true, they also cause damage) -- or Dullblade. David Dunham * Software Designer * Pensee Corporation Voice/Fax: 206-783-7404 * AppleLink: DDUNHAM * Internet: ddunham@radiomail.net  0, redistributed,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA05290; Thu, 16 Sep 93 17:33:32 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA06520; Thu, 16 Sep 93 18:30:44 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 16 Sep 93 18:32:33 EDT From: mabeyke@batman.b11.ingr.com (boris) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Animistic spirit magic and shamans Date: Thu, 16 Sep 93 17:33:55 CDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <10C83D4557E@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu> Been catching up on mail, and thinking about the animist spirit viewpoint that's been suggested. For color and verisimilitudinous it certainly (for myself, at least) is better than the vanilla descriptions in RQ3. There are a few aspects that seem to be problems, that people have pointed out. I think that some of these may be explained away, in the context of the spirit world. Several have commented on the fact that if "the spirit is the spell" then a spell caster could only have cast each spell once at any given time. This, IMHO, would disasterously weaken Spirit Magic. One person (sorry, I have forgotten who said what; please bear with me) suggested that if one had, say, a six point Bladesharp spirit then one could cast three points of it on two different swords, and the spirit would then merrily jump back and forth between blades, helping each. But if this is the case, why couldn't why all six points couldn't be cast on each blade. There's no reason to think that space and distance on the mundane plane have a one to one correlation with the spirit plane. Time doesn't exist on the Godplane; perhaps space is non-existant, or at least very different, on the Spirit plane. I propose that when a Spirit Magic spell is cast, part of the energy set's up a "path" or "connection" from the spirit's home in the focus to the target of the spell. If the spell is then cast again on another target, another connection is established. With these "paths", the spirit can happily jump from one target to the next, or ride around on all targets at the same time, until the "path" "decays" five minutes later, whereupon it goes back to it's bed to sleep. The distance on the mundane plane between the ends of these spiritual paths is based on the POW of the caster, say, POWx5. With this model, how would the mechanics change? Well, one could posit that the "path" is easier to establish to a target that the focus is part of (say, a Bladesharp focus on a sword). One could model this by giving an increased casting chance in that case, or by decreasing the MP cost. But these are optional, and each GM could use them or not as they chose. The basic mechanics of Spirit Magic, which, I think, most of us agree are pretty good, needn't change, just their interpretation. -- Boris Mikey, aka |"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive Maurice Beyke | for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if mabeyke@ingr.com | you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." Intergraph doesn't want Nietzsche my opinions.  0, redistributed,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA11437; Thu, 16 Sep 93 19:51:54 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA09940; Thu, 16 Sep 93 20:48:58 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 16 Sep 93 20:50:47 EDT From: jjm@zycor.lgc.com (johnjmedway) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: shamanism v. spirit magic Date: Thu, 16 Sep 93 19:47:53 CDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <10ED131337E@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu> my follow-ups to some of the befuddle/spirit magic/shaman-as-combat-monster postings: David Dunham on befuddle..... >> %% This would be OK, tho I'd suggest making it more like -30% per point >> %% (otherwise Befuddling a Rune Lord would have little difference). (Brent, I >> %% think it's OK to disable someone with Befuddle -- it happens now.) From: burt@ptltd.com (Burton Choinski) >> Aieeeee! Way too much. I think, to be at least marginally consistant, >> a -15% is fine. Two reasons: ... >> DUMBFOUND: -15%/pt to Knowledge Skills >> JITTERS: -15%/pt to Agility Skills >> FUMBLEFINGERS: -15%/pt to Manipulation SKills >> STUTTER: -15%/pt to Communication Skills >> DIMSIGHT: -15%/pt to Perception Skills >> CLUMBSYFOOT: -15%/pt to Stealth Skills ... >> There would be the opposite helping spells that would negate the above >> 7, or add 15%/pt (up to DOUBLE base skill). >> My turn to say "Aieeeee! Way too much!". I like the idea, here, but the payoff is just too damn high for such generic spells. Remember, Bladesharp & Dullblade are only 5% and only on one item. Speedart is +15%, but on only one missile. If Bladesharp was revalued to be +10% & +1 Damage per point, and others similarly, then it would be just fine to have all of these as 5%/1pt. Otherwise, there will be plenty-o-humakti who will ditch Bladesharp, and learn NIMBLEFINGERS. >> From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) >> >> The problem of unlimited stacking of spirit magic has been discussed >> on this list before. One proposed solution which I liked was to provide >> cult limits on the stacking of spirit magic spells: those which were But how do we handle shamans who shop for spirits? >> The Disrupt spell is not as powerful as it looks: a 1 pt disrupt does >> 1d3 damage, average 2; an 8 point disrupt does 1d10, average 5.5. Since This does devalue some cult specialty spells, such as Black Fang's Shatter. It is, as well, Munchkin Bait. someone else: >> > All-in-all, spirit magic should probably stay the most harmless magic, >> > even in the hands of shamans. Else we would have the problem we have with I agree. This is not meant to model zap-blast D&D magic. This is a form of interaction with the spirits of Glorantha, and how they can affect the mundane world. Some of these effects can be major, but putting a 10-pt befuddle or disrupt in general circulation may not be the right way to go about it. >> I disagree here. Shamans have a distinct lack of useful attack spells >> compared with both priests and sorcerers. The advantage lies purely >> in the spirits. Why do you consider the "attacking" role so important? I just don't see shamans as being into that sort of stuff. I also don't see their peoples expecting it either. A shaman is a medicine (wo)man, a wise (wo)man, a giver of advice and one who guides and guards the tribe regarding spirits an mystical matters. (S)he is not a spell-sniper.. >> From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) >> >> A disrupt 6 does an average of 4.5 damage, which a Heal 5 can repair: >> it's less effective to harm with a Disrupt above 2 (3 if your GM will >> allow 1d5) than it is to Heal it back up. It may not be cost effective, but it's a damn sight quicker - or should be. Blow out someone's leg, and they're meat on a hook if there are any of your allies near. They're disadvantaged for at least two melee rounds while healing and standing back up. In that case a volley of disrupt-6 will shatter any opposition; they're unarmed ( literally ), they drop as their leg is injured, or their heads split like ripe grapes. Why bother with armor anymore? Anyway, I'd argue that the healing should happen gradually, so that's not just two melee rounds in my game - more like 50 minutes ( 10 per point ). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | john_medway@zycor.lgc.com | Landmark Graphics Corp | 512.292.2325 | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------  0, redistributed,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA20850; Fri, 17 Sep 93 00:42:29 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA16238; Fri, 17 Sep 93 01:39:42 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 17 Sep 93 1:41:34 EDT From: Brent Krupp To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: RQ4 rules... Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1993 22:37:33 -0700 (PDT) Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <113A9E22749@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu> Could someone in the know please tell me and any other newbies out there how to obtain these RQ4 rules that some of you seem to know so much about? Thanks in advance for all of us 'youngsters'... fletcher@u.washington.edu (Brent Krupp)  0, redistributed,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA23142; Fri, 17 Sep 93 03:31:44 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA18317; Fri, 17 Sep 93 04:28:51 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 17 Sep 93 4:30:43 EDT From: David Dunham (via RadioMail) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: shamanism v. spirit magic Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1993 01:25:32 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <1167B7E4B31@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu> >From: jjm@zycor.lgc.com (johnjmedway) >Why do you consider the "attacking" role so important? I just don't see >shamans as being into that sort of stuff. I also don't see their peoples >expecting it either. A shaman is a medicine (wo)man, a wise (wo)man, a >giver of advice and one who guides and guards the tribe regarding spirits >an mystical matters. (S)he is not a spell-sniper.. In my Griffin Island game, shamans have to provide combat support to the warriors when the orcs attack backed by their sorcerers. They can do this with spells, but more importantly with medicine bundles and by using (entreating, coercing, releasing bound) spirits. (Of course, since this is battle, it's all abstracted.) In Dragon Pass, the Grazer shamans probably provide similar support for their mounted warriors, probably using assorted spirits of light. I think Sandy Petersen once described a magic contest where an Orlanth priest tried to impress a shaman with his Teleport and Thunderbolt...the shaman outclassed him. I think it was a combination of unusual (or very large) spirit magic, and stuff like lightning spirits. >From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) >> Several have commented on the fact that if "the spirit is the spell" then >> a spell caster could only have cast each spell once at any given time. >> This, IMHO, would disasterously weaken Spirit Magic. One person (sorry, I > > I don't think it would. In the games I've played, most PC's tend to >cast their own (temporal) spellls on themselves, only casting it on >other players in special circumstances. In my games, one person frequently casts Protection on several others, and I think there are some other spells that PCs share. I really wonder what we're trying to fix here. Befuddle may or may not be too powerful as written (I run it as written, but it never lets you kill someone automatically, since they'll watch as you approach, trying to figure out what you're doing, and at least get a parry when you attack), but I wasn't aware that spirit magic needed changing. (How you learn spells, maybe.) And the knowledge of a spell may or may not have anything to do with spirits (since the cult-granted battlemagic may change). It's far from clear that spirits = spells. David Dunham * Software Designer * Pensee Corporation Voice/Fax: 206-783-7404 * AppleLink: DDUNHAM * Internet: ddunham@radiomail.net  0, redistributed,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA23315; Fri, 17 Sep 93 03:51:03 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA18495; Fri, 17 Sep 93 04:48:18 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 17 Sep 93 4:50:08 EDT From: Henk.Langeveld@Holland.Sun.COM (Henk Langeveld - Sun Nederland) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RQ4 rules... Date: Fri, 17 Sep 93 10:47:28 +0200 Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <116CE816FBB@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu> fletcher@u.washington.edu (Brent Krupp) writes: >Could someone in the know please tell me and any other newbies out there >how to obtain these RQ4 rules that some of you seem to know so much about? >Thanks in advance for all of us 'youngsters'... Oliver, can you publish a short list of which playtest documents have been released? This could be part of a FAQ, which I'd be happy to distribute to the subscribers of the rq daily and digest. -- Henk | Henk.Langeveld@Sun.COM - Disclaimer: I don't speak for Sun. oK[] | RuneQuest-Request@Glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM  0, redistributed,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA11649; Thu, 16 Sep 93 20:01:13 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA10151; Thu, 16 Sep 93 20:58:19 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 16 Sep 93 21:00:07 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Animistic spirit magic and shamans Date: Fri, 17 Sep 93 10:57:52 GMT Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <10EF9546C61@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu> Boris writes: > Several have commented on the fact that if "the spirit is the spell" then > a spell caster could only have cast each spell once at any given time. > This, IMHO, would disasterously weaken Spirit Magic. One person (sorry, I I don't think it would. In the games I've played, most PC's tend to cast their own (temporal) spellls on themselves, only casting it on other players in special circumstances. The main exceptions are attack spells such as Befuddle and Demoralize, and I accept that this modification would rule out tactics where one person with high POW Befuddles several enemies. I din't see this as a disadvantage; in my opinion it is more in keeping with the limited, personal nature of spirit magic. The path model: most descriptions of spirits. when they interact with the mundane plane, give them a fairly fixed location. I proposed the idea that one spirit = one spell at a time since it seemed a logical result of having spirits maintaining spells. Explaining it away with something like "paths" seems IMO very painful; logically one could then say that spirits could attack multiple scattered people in spirit combat, since a spirit's location is indeterminate. If we want to use the spirit = spell concept we should be willing to accept it will have some effects on the rules, rather than creating more troubles by explaining away any differences > that the "path" is easier to establish to a target that the focus is part > of (say, a Bladesharp focus on a sword). One could model this by giving > an increased casting chance in that case, or by decreasing the MP cost. IMO this would be valid no matter what spirit magic interpretation is used. I would prefer to use an increase in casting chance than MP's; in the spirit magic rules to date the 1MP = 1 point of effect seems to be consistent, and if the MP's cost is reduced then I would expect that something else (the spell spirit itself?) would have to pay the extra cost. > The basic mechanics of Spirit Magic, which, I think, most of us agree are > pretty good, needn't change, just their interpretation. The basic idea is fairly good (cheap, easy to use magic avaiable to everyone). I'm not sure the rules as they stand are the best possible way of doing it, and IMO rules and interpretation must interact. > -- > Boris Mikey, aka |"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive > Maurice Beyke | for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if Graeme Lindsell a.k.a gal502@huxley.anu.edu.au  0, redistributed,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA16623; Thu, 16 Sep 93 22:39:16 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA13824; Thu, 16 Sep 93 23:36:26 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 16 Sep 93 23:38:19 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: shamanism v. spirit magic Date: Fri, 17 Sep 93 13:35:56 GMT Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <1119BE121A0@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu> > I like the idea, here, but the payoff is just too damn high for such generic > spells. Remember, Bladesharp & Dullblade are only 5% and only on one item. > Speedart is +15%, but on only one missile. > > If Bladesharp was revalued to be +10% & +1 Damage per point, and others > similarly, then it would be just fine to have all of these as 5%/1pt. > Otherwise, there will be plenty-o-humakti who will ditch Bladesharp, and > learn NIMBLEFINGERS. > > > > >> From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) > > But how do we handle shamans who shop for spirits? We play it out. I doubt the very large spell spirits come from anywhere except divine sources ie the big Bladesharp 8+s are only found in Humakti temples. If a shaman wants to go into the temple beat up and kidnap such a spirit, good luck to him! He'll need it. More seriously, I expect the system can expanded to tribes by giving a list of spells the tribe has good access to and those they can't find powerful spirits for. I don't see why all nomadic/primitive cultures should have complete access to all spells, anymore than all sorcerers should. > >> The Disrupt spell is not as powerful as it looks: a 1 pt disrupt does > >> 1d3 damage, average 2; an 8 point disrupt does 1d10, average 5.5. Since > This does devalue some cult specialty spells, such as Black Fang's Shatter. Your right, Shatter does look a bit less effective. Given the usual rate of 1 pt divine magic = 2 pts spirit magic/sorcery, it still doesn't stack up well against Sever Spirit, Fear, Madness, Sun Spear, Mindblast, Lightning... > It is, as well, Munchkin Bait. Let them take it. It's less effective than Bladesharp, Bludgeon, Firearrow, Multimissile, Protection, Shimmer etc. Spirit magic has a lot more effective Munchkin Bait spells then a 6 point spell that does 1d8 damage. Someone who throws 1/2 to 1/3 of his INT and a large number of his stored MP's on a spell that has a chance of taking out 1 adversary will not be a long lived Munchkin. > >> I disagree here. Shamans have a distinct lack of useful attack spells > >> compared with both priests and sorcerers. The advantage lies purely > >> in the spirits. > > > Why do you consider the "attacking" role so important? I just don't see Perhaps because almost every NPC shaman in scenarios are written up as combat monsters? In fact most NPC magicians of any sort are. > shamans as being into that sort of stuff. I also don't see their peoples > expecting it either. A shaman is a medicine (wo)man, a wise (wo)man, a > giver of advice and one who guides and guards the tribe regarding spirits > an mystical matters. (S)he is not a spell-sniper.. > Then it's a pity that most NPC shamans are written up as spirit launchers. Muriah doesn't seem heavy on wisdom. > > It may not be cost effective, but it's a damn sight quicker - or should be. > Blow out someone's leg, and they're meat on a hook if there are any of your > allies near. They're disadvantaged for at least two melee rounds while > healing and standing back up. > > In that case a volley of disrupt-6 will shatter any opposition; they're > unarmed ( literally ), they drop as their leg is injured, or their heads > split like ripe grapes. Why bother with armor anymore? Average leg/head hps: 4. Damage from disrupt 6: 1d8 3/8ths of victims keep coming, 4/8ths location out (heal 1-3 will repair unless dispel magic type heal used), 1/8th location destroyed. Combined with the MP vs MP roll I don't think this is the certain death spell you are painting it as. Compared with a volley of Multimissile 6's (1d8+1 x 7 attacks ) or a volley of Firearrows (2 points do 3d6 damage, armour protects but MP's don't) it doesn't look that deadly. How many stored MP's do your players have? "A volley of Disrupt-6" say 2 per player, will pretty much empty all the stored MP of our party. I think the people who bothered with armour, or more likely those even better munchkin spells bladesharp 6 and protection 6, would win. I thought that the stackable disrupt was a way to turn a next to useless spell - used only against skeletons or gorp, and to get the wonderful power check that everyone wants. Compared with Befuddle and Demoralize, or even the throw-away-parry Fanaticism it doesn't seem that strong. Disrupt 6 to me seems a big gamble: your spending a lot of time and MP in combat to cast a spell that may cripple an adversary. The ability boosting spells which last 5 minutes are the much better survival tactic. I suspect the power gamer/ruthless optimizer will tend towards Disrupt 2 or Disrupt 4: they have more bang for the buck. > Anyway, I'd argue that the healing should happen gradually, so that's not > just two melee rounds in my game - more like 50 minutes ( 10 per point ). The over-effectiveness of Healing is another matter that has been discussed on this list before. > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > | john_medway@zycor.lgc.com | Landmark Graphics Corp | 512.292.2325 | > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Graeme Lindsell a.k.a gal502@huxley.anu.edu.au  0, redistributed,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA02111; Fri, 17 Sep 93 09:58:01 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA03056; Fri, 17 Sep 93 10:54:56 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 17 Sep 93 10:56:57 EDT From: mabeyke@batman.b11.ingr.com (boris) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Animistic spirit magic and shamans Date: Fri, 17 Sep 93 9:58:02 CDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <11CEAF507A9@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu> Graeme writes: > I don't think it would. In the games I've played, most PC's tend to > cast their own (temporal) spellls on themselves, only casting it on > other players in special circumstances. The main exceptions are attack > spells such as Befuddle and Demoralize, and I accept that this modification > would rule out tactics where one person with high POW Befuddles several > enemies. I din't see this as a disadvantage; in my opinion it is more > in keeping with the limited, personal nature of spirit magic. I guess we play in different types of games. In my experience, PCs share spells when they have the opportunity, and only allowing a given learned spell to be cast once at any time would severely limit things. Having one person Befuddle multiple people is much more rare, and then usually limited to at most two or three targets. > > The path model: most descriptions of spirits. when they interact with > the mundane plane, give them a fairly fixed location. I proposed the > idea that one spirit = one spell at a time since it seemed a logical > result of having spirits maintaining spells. Explaining it away with > something like "paths" seems IMO very painful; logically one could then > say that spirits could attack multiple scattered people in spirit > combat, since a spirit's location is indeterminate. Most spirits, when they interact with the mundane plane, must first become visible, i.e. manifest on the mundane plane. Since they are no longer on the spirit plane, their location is no longer indeterminate. Hence they may only attack one person at a time. Ghosts, wraiths, and other frequently encountered spirits are usually bound to a location or item on the mundane plane, so they *do* have a fixed location (and they still have to become visible to do anything). This is fundamentally different from the path model. In that, the spell spirit resides in the focus. In the act of "casting" the spirit spell the spirit mage opens a doorway from the focus to the target, over which the spirit may use it's power. The more MPs used to open the doorway/path, the more power the spirit may exert, up to it's maximum. It may be that such "paths" can only be opened by someone on the same plane as the target; if this is the case, then magic spirits must be visible before they can cast spells on mundane targets (which I think is the case anyway). > If we want to use the spirit = spell concept we should be willing > to accept it will have some effects on the rules, rather than creating > more troubles by explaining away any differences I agree that the model used will affect the rules. However, I didn't like the limitations of that interpretation, and tried to think of a valid reinterpretation. One that, IMHO, doesn't create any more troubles and solves a few that I considered unacceptable. > > The basic mechanics of Spirit Magic, which, I think, most of us agree are > > pretty good, needn't change, just their interpretation. > > The basic idea is fairly good (cheap, easy to use magic avaiable to > everyone). I'm not sure the rules as they stand are the best possible > way of doing it, and IMO rules and interpretation must interact. I agree wholeheartedly. And I misspoke myself somewhat earlier. What I meant is that I think that most of us like the current effects of most of the spirit spells as written (with some few exceptions, such as Befuddle). They are a relatively low powered, but useful set of spells. The mechanics of casting are a different thing (I personally like Nick Brooke's Pendragonesque method [roll 1d20 over points of spell and under POW + {focusing skill}/5]), that I think will generate lots of discussion. And they should be model driven, as you said. -- Boris Mikey, aka |"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive Maurice Beyke | for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if mabeyke@ingr.com | you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." Intergraph doesn't want Nietzsche my opinions.  0, redistributed,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA01047; Fri, 17 Sep 93 19:10:30 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AB28993; Fri, 17 Sep 93 20:05:26 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 17 Sep 93 20:09:32 EDT From: David Dunham (via RadioMail) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Befuddle Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1993 17:01:58 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <12618993263@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu> >mabeyke@batman.b11.ingr.com (boris) > I guess we play in different types of games. In my experience, PCs > share spells when they have the opportunity, and only allowing a given > learned spell to be cast once at any time would severely limit things. > Having one person Befuddle multiple people is much more rare, and then > usually limited to at most two or three targets. Hmm, this suggests that Befuddle has a one-word change that may satisfy people who think it's too powerful: change "Passive" to "Active." David Dunham * Software Designer * Pensee Corporation Voice/Fax: 206-783-7404 * AppleLink: DDUNHAM * Internet: ddunham@radiomail.net  0, redistributed,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA03380; Fri, 17 Sep 93 20:52:19 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01140; Fri, 17 Sep 93 21:47:43 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 17 Sep 93 21:51:22 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Why change spirit magic? Date: Sat, 18 Sep 93 11:47:12 GMT Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <127CC980B35@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu> In reply to David Dunham: > I really wonder what we're trying to fix here. [with spirit magic] I can't answer for anyone else but my motives are: i) Clear up the nature of spirit magic. This is the reason why I advocate the spirit = spell ideas, the spirit helper and animist concepts: it gives players some idea of what is going on. The current system where players fight a spirit that then teaches them a spell makes no sense. I read the description and ask "why?" - why do such spirits exist? The spirit helper and animist systems make IMO much more sense - the idea that there are spirits who have power over various natural forces seems central to most real world systems of magic I've read. The combat then becomes either an attempt to show you're a worthy ally (cult or tribal spirits) or an actual attempt to enslave. There is no mysterious transfer of spell, but just the service of something that does have that power. ii) Make the spell list a bit more coherent. The list of available spells right now is very strange: most are combat oriented, without those petty spells that I would think a lot of non-warriors would like. This is why I like the Improve(Skill) idea as a template for skill improving spirit spells. I'll probably be posting a few idea on this soon. There is always the attitude of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". IMO this attitude is a recipe for stagnation. I like to think some things can always be improved. iii) Fix up some things I think are broken, like Befuddle. iv) To talk to people about RQ rules. This is a discussion list, and rules discussion on the other list has a tendency to get flamed. Graeme Lindsell a.k.a gal502@huxley.anu.edu.au "When Stalin says dance, wise men dance" - Nikita Krushchev  0, redistributed,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA04071; Fri, 17 Sep 93 21:21:57 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01715; Fri, 17 Sep 93 22:17:22 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 17 Sep 93 22:20:59 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Animistic spirit magic and shamans Date: Sat, 18 Sep 93 12:16:45 GMT Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <1284B3532CC@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu> Boris writes: > This is fundamentally different from the path model. In that, the spell > spirit resides in the focus. In the act of "casting" the spirit spell > the spirit mage opens a doorway from the focus to the target, over which > the spirit may use it's power. The more MPs used to open the doorway/path, > the more power the spirit may exert, up to it's maximum. I don't see why this models allows the spirit to have an unlimited number of spells running at once, any more than saying the spirit has to be at the target. The animist system where there are a lot of other spirits around that you talk to through your spell spirit, does allow it though. I'll run a bit with the path model though. A path is set up between the casting spirit and the target. This is similar to some ideas that floated around about Paul Reilly's Presence/Twin sorcery system a few months ago, and has the virtue of linking the two systems: in spirit magic, the spirit has the power to make the spells but needs the paths set up, in sorcery the twin can supply the power to maintain the spell, but the sorcerer must provide the knowledge and the paths. What else will the path method do: i) Are the paths visible to someone with Second Sight/SoulSight/ Mystic vision? Can a spell be tracked back to its caster? This leads to: ii) What happens to spells when the caster/spirit are killed/ unconscious/defeated in spirit combat? Do they immediately disappear? iii) Are Dispel Magic/Dismiss Magic/Neutralize Magic spells which cut the path between the spell and its creator/maintainer? What else can cut a path? iv) The range for creating a path is 50 metres (RQ3) or Pow x 5 (RQ4). What happens when the caster moves more then 50 metres away from the enspelled target. Does the path stretch or snap? (IMO stretch.) When we decide on what the answers to these questions, we can apply them directly to sorcery. With Rune Magic we could assume that the caster opens a link between the god and his target, so the effects may be slightly different. > I agree that the model used will affect the rules. However, I didn't > like the limitations of that interpretation, and tried to think of a valid > reinterpretation. One that, IMHO, doesn't create any more troubles and > solves a few that I considered unacceptable. I think it creates a few more questions and I don't think it necessarily solves the problem you want it to: why can they maintain an unlimited no of spells? They are still just one limited spirit: if they have an indeterminate location on the spirit plane they still have to interact with the mundane plane, which (quantum mechanics aside) wants most things, including spells, to have a fixed target. > Befuddle). They are a relatively low powered, but useful set of spells. I'm not sure they are that low-powered (cf Heal, Bladesharp). The important thing is that everyone can get access to some of them. This causes a problem for non-professional sorcerers though, since their spells are weaker per MP and harder to cast > The mechanics of casting are a different thing (I personally like Nick > Brooke's Pendragonesque method [roll 1d20 over points of spell and under > POW + {focusing skill}/5]), that I think will generate lots of discussion. > And they should be model driven, as you said. I've always liked the idea of a single skill for casting spirit spells (in your path system it would probably be Path Focussing) rather than using power. I'm told by people who've tried that it has problems though. A system of Success = (Skill - 5xspell points) would seem closer to the rest of the RQ rules for me. > -- > Boris Mikey, aka |"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive  0, redistributed,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA21291; Sat, 18 Sep 93 17:49:10 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA24361; Sat, 18 Sep 93 18:45:19 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 18 Sep 93 18:48:12 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: shamanism v. spirit magic Date: Sat, 18 Sep 93 18:45:02 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <13CC3BF07AF@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu> Paul Reilly here. A couple of comments: Befuddle: We have run this a couple of different ways, both in different campaigns and had different forms of the spell in the same campaign. In general we liked the RQ2 version better, but with the proviso that the Befuddled person is just confused about certain facts, (like who her friends are) rather than unaware. Thus it would take a Stealth roll to get behind a Befuddled warrior, whose conditioned reflexes include turning to face armed people and parrying weapons. In RQ II a favorite was to Befuddle one opponent, Harmonize the one next to him, and have the Harmonized one hit the Befuddled one... For the RQ3 spell description (where stupid people snap out of it more easily than intelligent ones) I played Befuddle as causing a sort of intense intellectual curiousity. "Hmm... is that a _Rattus rattus_ over there or a _Rattus horribilus_? (Rubble runner) I must investigate... pity everyone seems to be shouting and clashing weapons, it's rather distracting!" This sort of thing was amusing but on the whole the spell was too powerful. I'd keep the game effects from RQ II but would use a different description of the effects according to the source of the spell: Shamans: Effect varies. A Snake shaman may 'hypnotize' with his eyes while a Leopard shaman may paralyze with a roar. Chalana Arroy: (Originator of the spell) Puts the subject in a mental state where he does not feel pain or fear by imposing the Harmony rune (useful for surgery, etc;) also the Harmony Rune prevents the subject from _initiating_ violence. Violence against the subject breaks the spell as it is opposed to the Harmony rune. Thief Gods: Daze: A modification of Chalana's spell by some of the deities who originally stole it from her. Still uses the Harmony rune, but throws in a bit of Illusion. The Befuddled person tends to see everything as "Normal". Used on watchmen, etc. Eurmal: Also stolen from Chalana, but with an admixture of Disorder his version produces reeling drunkenness. Often cast on self. Donander: 'Entrance': Must be combined with performance; commands total attention. Legitimate use is to enhance the effect of a performance, typically dance or music, but some Donanderi are said to work in collusion with pickpockets. etc., etc., -------------- Magic with 'helper spirits' I liked the comment that a single spirit might be able to run multiple spells, as space, time, and number may apply differently on the spirit plane. Should have realized this myself... we were already doing this with darkness demons. But it may be that the Great Compromise can keep a spirit from exerting itself several times at the same point in Time. Probably so, when you think about it. Thus there would have to be some sort of fundamental limit. (Else ghosts, etc., could also manifest multiply.) Oops, out of time. More another day... - Paul  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA04128; Sun, 19 Sep 93 20:43:02 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA24373; Sun, 19 Sep 93 21:39:56 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 19 Sep 93 21:42:04 EDT From: rev. marc l. eyraud To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Befuddle Date: Sun, 19 Sep 93 18:35:04 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <157AD2A02D1@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu> the complaint i seem to hear about befuddle is that (compared to demoralize), it's too powerful because it makes your opponents completely stupid and they just stand around and wait for you to kill them. the way we play it, the individual is confused but not completely brain dead. for example, the npc can see that there is a large melee occuring, but doesn't remember who his friends are, which side he is on, etc. so when anyone comes near he//she will act very defensively, perhaps ever try to leave the area untill they remember what is going on. not just stand there and wait for the characters to do something. befuddle is still quite useful this way, but your player characters still have to deal the npc as a potential threat and not as future meatloaf! me  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA10188; Mon, 20 Sep 93 00:26:39 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA29390; Mon, 20 Sep 93 01:23:49 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 20 Sep 93 1:25:43 EDT From: davidc@cs.uwa.edu.au (David Cake) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Why change spirit magic? Date: Mon, 20 Sep 93 12:45:35 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <15B68D22BB6@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu> > > In reply to David Dunham: > > > I really wonder what we're trying to fix here. > [with spirit magic] > > I can't answer for anyone else but my motives are: > > i) Clear up the nature of spirit magic. This is the I have my doubts that this is really a very urgent problem. I also don't really see it as a rules problem - I would rather see minimal changes to the rules, but more explanation of why. > reason why I advocate the spirit = spell ideas, the > spirit helper and animist concepts: it gives players > some idea of what is going on. I have some problems with it. I am unconvinced that this is how magic is supposed to work in Glorantha, and it introduced (IMHO needless) rules incompatibilities and role-playing complications. The things that people have been describing as animist spirit magic sound a lot more like ordering magic spirits around than casting spells. I'm not saying that it is something that shouldn't be in the game (indeed, its given me lots of great ideas for role-playing shamans) , but it is not something that I want to have replace spirit magic. I think of spell spirit combats as more like an ordeal, or a ritual trial, to gain the power of X by confronting its essence, rather than a straight out attack on a spirit and capture of it. Remember spell spirits are non-sentient, and I would rather that they stayed that way. The current system > where players fight a spirit that then teaches them > a spell makes no sense. Does to me. Maybe it needs better explanation. [bit deleted] > > ii) Make the spell list a bit more coherent. The Yes. I think Improve(Skill) is a real good idea, though I think that as it stands it is perhaps too powerful, I have a problem with good craftsmen being outdone by bad craftsman with Improve(Skill) 5 (+75%!). Maybe only +5%? Or maybe some other change (like does not change quality of work, does not add to special/critical chances, or somehting like that?). Improve Skill is probably all the non-combat spells we really need to round out the system (there are already a fair number of non-combat spells - Repair, Glamour, Glue). > > iii) Fix up some things I think are broken, like > Befuddle. Yes. IMHO the RQ3 version was hopeless (though I didn't realise this till I got someone (with rules-exploiting tendencies) who read the description carefully and exploited it badly). The RQ4 version is much better. I don't have a big problem with it now. > > iv) To talk to people about RQ rules. This is a > discussion list, and rules discussion on the > other list has a tendency to get flamed. Fair enough. > > Graeme Lindsell a.k.a gal502@huxley.anu.edu.au > "When Stalin says dance, wise men dance" > - Nikita Krushchev > Dave Cake  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA19331; Mon, 20 Sep 93 09:30:58 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA15393; Mon, 20 Sep 93 10:29:44 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 20 Sep 93 10:29:58 EDT From: David Cheng To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Why change spirit magic? Date: Mon, 20 Sep 93 10:26:36 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <16481DA5C72@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu> David Cake says: # I have some problems with it. I am unconvinced that this is how magic # is supposed to work in Glorantha, and it introduced (IMHO needless) rules # incompatibilities and role-playing complications. The things that people have # been describing as animist spirit magic sound a lot more like ordering # magic spirits around than casting spells. I'm not saying that it is # something that shouldn't be in the game (indeed, its given me lots of great # ideas for role-playing shamans) , but it is not something that I want to have # replace spirit magic. I think of spell spirit combats as more like an ordeal, # or a ritual trial, to gain the power of X by confronting its essence, rather # than a straight out attack on a spirit and capture of it. Remember spell # spirits are non-sentient, and I would rather that they stayed that way. I don't quite see it this way. Many moons ago, Charles Morehouse (the guy who developed _Masters of Luck and Death_) asked Stafford about the natures of the different types of spirits. The answer he got was something akin to: "The way the spirits are presented are purely from a game mechanics point of view. Spirits have personalities, etc, not readily apparent from looking just at the INT and POW stats presented." For a long time now, I've been telling folks that to get a spirit magic spell, you've got to find a spirit with the spell, beat him up, and take it for yourself (kind of like a mini-heroquest, as portrayed in many early drafts). The spell is the prize of your victory. If you're a Yelm initiate, it's easy to go to the Yelm priest and ask for a Light spell. If you've been a good worshipper, you get it pretty-much automatically. A cult spirit is summoned, and the spell is ritually 'passed' to you. No combat, no POW gain roll. (Unless you take the view that you've got to fight the cult spirit to prove yourself. Then, the ritual combat follows. I see this as being particularly appropriate for might-makes-right kinda gods, like Zorak Zoran and Wachaza.) If you go to your shaman for a spell, he's got to look around for a spirit that has it already, 'snare' the spirit, bring it back to you, and force it to fight you. Good shamans know where to look for certain spirits/spells. A very bold shaman will go close to a Yelm holy site where there are lots of Light spirits. Less powerful shamen will not be so foolhardy, and will have search the spirit plane for a 'lost' spirit that has light. Just my way of seeing it. Yours may differ. -DC *David Cheng drcheng@sales.stern.nyu.edu / d.cheng@genie.geis.com Ask me about RuneQuest-Con! (212) 472-7752 [before midnight]  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA10978; Mon, 20 Sep 93 01:09:04 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA29891; Mon, 20 Sep 93 02:06:16 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 20 Sep 93 2:08:06 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Why change spirit magic? Date: Mon, 20 Sep 93 16:05:46 GMT Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <15C1D954FF9@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu> Dave Cake writes: > The current system > > where players fight a spirit that then teaches them > > a spell makes no sense. > > Does to me. Maybe it needs better explanation. Go ahead. > > [bit deleted] > > > > ii) Make the spell list a bit more coherent. The > > Yes. I think Improve(Skill) is a real good idea, though I think that > as it stands it is perhaps too powerful, I have a problem with good craftsmen This is something I've started writing on the Improve (Skill) concept, currently imcomplete. I thought I'd show it to the net to see everyones reaction: Generic "Improve (Skill)" Spells A while ago the idea of bundling the various skill improving spirit spells such as Bladesharp, Bludgeon Speedart, Silence etc into one generic format was floated around the list. The idea would be that each cult would teach the Improve(Skills) spells for those cult skills required for priesthood, and that purely shamanic (ie nomadic or primitive) cultures would teach them for the important survival skills of the tribe. Note that this would cause a few changes in specific cult spells: Yelmalio for one would get Bladesharp. This wouldn't bother me too much - Yelmalio currently has the worst spell list imaginable for a warrior's god - but it is against the myth that he was disarmed at the Hill of Gold. The spell Parry, currently a Humakti cult speel, would become much more generally available. General Format: I think the best general format would be +10% to skill per point for pure skill enhancement, or +5%/+1 yield for those spells (like Bladesharp) that add to the effectiveness as well as the chance of success. No skill may be improved beyond twice the base skill ie Regin knows Spear Attack at 25%: Improve(Edged Weapon attack) a.k.a Bladesharp can only increase his attack chance to 50%, no matter how strong a spell is used Thus Mobility becomes +5% to Run, Manoever/+1 to MR per point, Silence +10% to Sneak per point (bit downgraded I know) etc. This would provide characters with a much greater range of spirit magic spells. Going through the various skill categories: Agility Improve(Ride):Suremount?, Bond Steed? would be welcome to those many characters with ride skills lower than other vital skills, or those who need deft control in dangerous conditions. Either defined as +10% per point pure skill enhancer, or +5%/+1 to mounts MR as a version of Mobility. Improve (Climb): Arachne's gift, Orlanth's hands, Burglars Mate? +5%/+1 climb MR per point. Useful for those parties who've just come to the end of the adventure in River of Cradles and found out that they all have crappy climb skills! Improve (Swim) Duckfeet. Can be very useful just when you need it! +5%/+1 MR Improve (Parry). Just like Humakti cult spirit magic. Improve (Dodge). Logically, this spell would be +10% per point, since there is nothing else too improve. Does this seem too powerful? Improve (Boat) Waertagi's craft. Useful to Zola Fel cultists (even involuntary ones - see RoC!) or other fisherfolk. Not a big PC spell, but could have an occasional use. Communication Improve (Fast Talk): Poker face, Eurmals Tongue; Improve (Orate): Boldspeech, Yelm's Voice; Improve (Bargain): Silvervoice: All of these are +10% to skill per point, and are very useful to those characters who want to deal with others with words rather than bronze, but the skill limit of the language your speaking still applies, which leads to: Improve (Speak Language): Usually only available for those languages spoken near the place where you learn the spell - the Issaries Temples in Dragon Pass can rarely provide initiates with Speak (Loskalmi). For some reason, Speak (New Pelorian) is a bit hard to find these days as well. :-) Again, another set of generally useful spells. A trader will learn the spell for the major languages of a new region, to forget it later when he master the languages. (Issaries will also teach Improve (Speak TradeTalk)1-2 to almost everyone, so they can Bargain with you better, but all the spell spirits are marked "Manufactured in Machine City for Jrusteli Theyalan Trading Company Zistori Linguistics: 'We Build Better Languages!'") Reading skills: Improve(Read) exists for those Languages with a written form. It is a separate spell from the spoken form, even if you can write a language with the same notation. Knowledge Skills Lore : Improve(Lore) spells exist for each lore, and a casting must be used for every Lore check attempted. If a player is asked to test a Lore skill and fails, the GM must rules as to whether the PC knew which Lore is relevant: if s/he does, then the player may cast the spell to get (one) other attempt. Use of these spells is banned at Lhankor Mhy exams on pain of excommunication! [list to be continued, any ideas welcome. Common names for the Improve(skill) spells very welcome!] A few questions for the list: i) How should Bladesharp be treated? RQ treats the combat skills as micro skills, covering fairly narrow areas of knowledge (as compared with, say, World Lore), but the current Bladesharp enhances the ability of any edged or pointed weapon (much to Nick Brooke's disgust :-)). Should the Improve(weapon attack) spell be more narrowly defined than RQ3 Bladesharp, or of a similar broad effect? ii) What about skills which take more than 5 minutes to use? How should the spells affect them? Craft skills in particular iii) Speedart: should it remain in its current form, or become a +5%/+1 damage spell that affects all appropriate missile weapon attacks for the duration? Graeme Lindsell a.k.a gal502@huxley.anu.edu.au > carefully and exploited it badly). The RQ4 version is much better. I don't > have a big problem with it now. My problem with the RQ4 Befuddle is that I don't think the effects are different enough from demoralize to warrant a separate spell. Graeme Lindsell a.k.a gal502@huxley.anu.edu.au > Dave Cake > > >  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA01074; Mon, 20 Sep 93 12:27:33 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA26358; Mon, 20 Sep 93 13:26:28 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 20 Sep 93 13:26:36 EDT From: David Dunham (via RadioMail) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Why change spirit magic? Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1993 10:22:19 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <16774201540@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu> Just thought of a potential drawback to Improve -- most of the craft skills take longer than spirit magic duration. (First Aid is an exception...) >No skill may be improved beyond twice the base skill Good idea. >For some reason, Speak >(New Pelorian) is a bit hard to find these days as well. :-) I would think not -- this spell would be eagerly sought after, both by Lunar sympathizers, and by enemies who wanted to eavesdrop. I do like game constructs that eliminate language barriers -- I came up with Language Spirits for my campaign... >ii) What about skills which take more than 5 minutes to use? >How should the spells affect them? Craft skills in particular I see Graeme thought of this too. Maybe these skills can't be improved by magic, so a master craftsman can't be matched? David Dunham * Software Designer * Pensee Corporation Voice/Fax: 206-783-7404 * AppleLink: DDUNHAM * Internet: ddunham@radiomail.net (on the road in Massachusetts)  0,, *** EOOH *** Message-Id: <9309202153.AA20983@deepthought.cs.utexas.edu> Received: by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) id AA20983; Mon, 20 Sep 93 16:53:49 -0500 From: peggy@cs.utexas.edu (Peggy Ann Chovan) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1993 16:53:48 -0500 X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.5 10/14/92) To: miranker Subject: computer order Cc: gadbois Dr. Miranker, I just wanted to let know that I place the order for the computer system for David today. The ETA for it is about 8 days. I'll let you know when it get in. Thanks, Peggy  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA07390; Wed, 22 Sep 93 14:00:11 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA02142; Wed, 22 Sep 93 14:58:52 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 22 Sep 93 14:59:05 EDT From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Why change spirit magic? Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1993 23:26:10 MEZ Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <1990013308D@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu> In <16481DA5C72@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu>, you write: > David Cake says: > # I have some problems with it. I am unconvinced that this is how magic > # is supposed to work in Glorantha, and it introduced (IMHO needless) rules > # incompatibilities and role-playing complications. The things that people have > # been describing as animist spirit magic sound a lot more like ordering > # magic spirits around than casting spells. I'm not saying that it is > # something that shouldn't be in the game (indeed, its given me lots of great > # ideas for role-playing shamans) , but it is not something that I want to have > # replace spirit magic. I think of spell spirit combats as more like an ordeal, > # or a ritual trial, to gain the power of X by confronting its essence, rather > # than a straight out attack on a spirit and capture of it. Remember spell > # spirits are non-sentient, and I would rather that they stayed that way. I never understood why the animistic approach to battle magic (to use RQ2 terminology). While I like the spirit alliance idea for Hsunchen or Agimori and the spirit mastery idea for shamans and apprentice shamans, I don't feel it to be appropriate for Dara Happan Yelm cultists, and only in lesser degree for Sartarite Orlanthi. > I don't quite see it this way. Many moons ago, Charles Morehouse (the > guy who developed _Masters of Luck and Death_) asked Stafford about > the natures of the different types of spirits. The answer he got was > something akin to: > "The way the spirits are presented are purely from a game mechanics > point of view. Spirits have personalities, etc, not readily > apparent from looking just at the INT and POW stats presented." I think that spirits as well as the spirit plane need more colour. About two months ago I tried to get some controverse by describing the existing rules constructs a bit more from the world point of view, but I got no reactions. Shall I repost my ideas? > For a long time now, I've been telling folks that to get a spirit > magic spell, you've got to find a spirit with the spell, beat him > up, and take it for yourself (kind of like a mini-heroquest, as > portrayed in many early drafts). The spell is the prize of your > victory. That's the way I explained it for my players, years before I even heard of the HeroQuest system and what it consists of. The spirit spell is ideed a kind of hero-ability, suitable for a universe with "heroic ecology", as Glorantha recently was described. > If you're a Yelm initiate, it's easy to go to the Yelm priest and > ask for a Light spell. If you've been a good worshipper, you get it > pretty-much automatically. A cult spirit is summoned, and the spell > is ritually 'passed' to you. No combat, no POW gain roll. (Unless > you take the view that you've got to fight the cult spirit to prove > yourself. Then, the ritual combat follows. I see this as being > particularly appropriate for might-makes-right kinda gods, like Zorak > Zoran and Wachaza.) I never allowed POW-gain rolls for Spell Spirit combat. IMO the spell knowledge is reward enough. Nor do I alow Spirit Screen or similar artifices - if these are used, no spell knowledge can get through. The recipient has to prove herself worthy. Might-makes-right cults shouldn't interfere if the spirits wins, at least not at once - let the weak suffer. > If you go to your shaman for a spell, he's got to look around for a > spirit that has it already, 'snare' the spirit, bring it back to you, Which kind of character woud go to a shaman? How frequent (and socially accepted) are Orlanthi Kolatings (wind shamans)? What would be their equivalent in Dara Happan society? Yelm the one-eyed shaman? Which mother in Lunar society has shamanic powers? Which position would that be in Esrolia? Would there be Subere shamans in Kethaela (among Argan Argar cultists)? > and force it to fight you. Good shamans know where to look for > certain spirits/spells. A very bold shaman will go close to a Yelm > holy site where there are lots of Light spirits. Less powerful shamen > will not be so foolhardy, and will have search the spirit plane for a > 'lost' spirit that has light. > Just my way of seeing it. Yours may differ. > -DC Mine doesn't too much. -- 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 AA28147; Mon, 20 Sep 93 17:58:28 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA15223; Mon, 20 Sep 93 18:57:21 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 20 Sep 93 18:57:29 EDT From: Henk.Langeveld@Holland.Sun.COM (Henk Langeveld - Sun Nederland) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Why change spirit magic? Date: Tue, 21 Sep 93 00:56:45 +0200 Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <16CF8121C2B@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu> davidc@cs.uwa.edu.au (David Cake) in <15B68D22BB6@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu>: >> reason why I advocate the spirit = spell ideas, the >> spirit helper and animist concepts: it gives players >> some idea of what is going on. > I have some problems with it. I am unconvinced that this is how magic >is supposed to work in Glorantha, and it introduced (IMHO needless) rules >incompatibilities and role-playing complications. The things that people have >been describing as animist spirit magic sound a lot more like ordering >magic spirits around than casting spells. I'm not saying that it is >something that shouldn't be in the game (indeed, its given me lots of great >ideas for role-playing shamans) , but it is not something that I want to have >replace spirit magic. I think of spell spirit combats as more like an ordeal, >or a ritual trial, to gain the power of X by confronting its essence, rather >than a straight out attack on a spirit and capture of it. Remember spell >spirits are non-sentient, and I would rather that they stayed that way. I prefer your model of the spell spirits as the essence of the spell, although I appreciate the idea of interpreting Bladesharp as 'talking' to your sword and asking it to help you. Whatever metaphor you use, it's all a matter of focussing on what you're trying to do. I do agree that the spellteaching ritual and most spirit stuff could use more role-playing incentives. The possibilities are there, we just have too few examples... About Improve(Skill): I'd really use 5%/mp, no more, which would make Bladesharp a specific instance of this spell -- Improve(Sword attack). Apply 1pt side effects, for handling additional ENC, armor points, etc. -- 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 AA02186; Mon, 20 Sep 93 20:14:52 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA19313; Mon, 20 Sep 93 21:13:47 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 20 Sep 93 21:13:54 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Why change spirit magic? Date: Mon, 20 Sep 93 21:13:35 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <16F3F15686F@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu> Paul, replying to Dave Cake > I have some problems with it. I am unconvinced that this is how magic >is supposed to work in Glorantha, and it introduced (IMHO needless) rules >incompatibilities and role-playing complications. The things that people have >been describing as animist spirit magic sound a lot more like ordering >magic spirits around than casting spells. I'm not saying that it is Let me say that I originally suggested these as a set of variant rules with a rationale that seemed to make sense. It seems that Greg is now advocating (Third hand reports here) that Glorantha has many different systems of magic and that the three described in the RQ rules are at best crude God-Learnerish generalizations. Thus there should be room for many slight variant systems on Glorantha, with GMs choosing which one suits their campaign. The spirit helper system is based on various books, particularly "The Way of the Shaman" by an author whose name has slipped my mind. His description concurs with that of many other authors. In his description most people in many shamanic societies get spirit helpers, thus these should correspond in power to spirit magic rather than magic spirits. The shaman helps the person go on a spirit journey, often with drugs and drumming. The journey is into an Otherworld, often a magical Underworld (with trees, etc., more like Pellucidar than Hell) in which several power animals are met. Insects are typically bad (but would be good for Gloranthan trolls). Often the fourth animal met turns out to be the helper (but on Glorantha it could be the fifth or sixth...) The helper stays with the tribesman after his spirit journey for several years or sometimes for life. I would say (from reading these books) that he keeps a spirit for a long time and that it grows along with him as he gains mana, orenda, or whatever. It could also learn new, related tricks. Is the system in RQ3 based on some real world shamanic system? If someone in the know should describe it. If not, I think we should look at real world beliefs. The animist system is more based on fairy and folk tales, both from Europe and many other places. The basic idea of talking to things and getting their help is an old one; look at the myth of Baldur for a glaringly obvious example. - Paul Reilly PS> I really like these systems and will try to come up with a coherent model. The non-rules part I will present on the DIgest and the rules part on this list. I can't predict when I will get time to do this,however.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA02714; Mon, 20 Sep 93 20:42:32 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA20142; Mon, 20 Sep 93 21:41:28 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 20 Sep 93 21:41:34 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Why change spirit magic? Date: Mon, 20 Sep 93 21:40:58 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <16FB3E13064@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu> Paul replying to David CHeng: I completely agree with David that getting cult magic is a sort of mini Heroquest and we sometimes run these. In a civilized temple these are formalized pre-scripted psychodramas but in more primitive lands things can get a bit hairy. I see the Heroquesting as more basic and the formalized temple magic (both Rune and Spirit) as a later addition. The animist and helper spirit approaches are more for shamanic cultures. Oh, replying to someone else (D. Cake?): the "intelligence" and "personality" of the spirits involved here would be described by a Western atheist as a projection of the shaman's personality, a sort of overactive imagination magically imposed on a bit of Spirit Plane energy. (IMO). More another time, Paul R.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA06521; Mon, 20 Sep 93 23:23:00 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA24518; Tue, 21 Sep 93 00:21:54 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 21 Sep 93 0:22:02 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Why change spirit magic? Date: Tue, 21 Sep 93 14:21:24 GMT Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <17260D10190@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu> Graeme replying to Paul, replying to Dave Cake > best crude God-Learnerish generalizations. Thus there should be room > for many slight variant systems on Glorantha, with GMs choosing which > one suits their campaign. Yes, I agree this would be the best way to do it. If the "Rules Companion" ever appears, a few different views of spirit magic and the game effects of them would be nice addition IMO. > > The spirit helper system is based on various books, particularly > "The Way of the Shaman" by an author whose name has slipped my mind. Our library index lists: The way of the shaman : a guide to power and healing / Michael Harner. 1st ed. San Francisco : Harper & Row, c1980 xviii, 167 p. : ill. ;24 cm. ISBN 0060637102 Is this the one? > > The helper stays with the tribesman after his spirit journey for several > years or sometimes for life. I would say (from reading these books) that > he keeps a spirit for a long time and that it grows along with him as > he gains mana, orenda, or whatever. It could also learn new, related > tricks. How could this be produced in the RQ framework? POW donation to your spell spirits? Regular worship/MP donation? Small heroquests to increase their power? This description does sound rather more like an allied spirit than a spell spirit, but I feel that it is the spirit that does any actual magic, it is the spirit that has the power. > > Is the system in RQ3 based on some real world shamanic system? If > someone in the know should describe it. If not, I think we should look > at real world beliefs. > I agree. > > The animist system is more based on fairy and folk tales, both from > Europe and many other places. The basic idea of talking to things and getting > their help is an old one; Re: the animist system. IMO the main difference an animistic system would have from the raw RQ3 system would be modifiers to spell powers depending on location ie an elf whose spells are all learnt in the forest would have difficulty using those spells in a troll stronghold, since the spirits there wouldn't want to help her. On the other hand, when she is in her forest she gains extra strength, since the spirits there are her friends. > - Paul Reilly > > > PS> I really like these systems and will try to come up with > a coherent model. The non-rules part I will present on the DIgest and > the rules part on this list. I can't predict when I will get time to do > this,however. I look forward to it whenever. 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 AA18140; Tue, 21 Sep 93 16:59:04 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA13450; Tue, 21 Sep 93 17:56:36 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 21 Sep 93 17:56:54 EDT From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Combat and spirit magic spells Date: Tue, 21 Sep 93 16:56:18 -0500 Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <183F6527186@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu> Actually, according to an issue of Tales of the Reaching Moon (#5), the "combat orientation" of spirit magic is more an artifact of the way that it has been used than the actual spells, themselves. For example, many farmers know "bladesharp" to some extent or another. Why? They cast it on their plow when they hit a hard chunk of soil and want to keep their furrows straight. "Bludgeon" is useful when pounding in fence poles (helps with the force of the hammer and the accuracy of the blow). Et cetera.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA10519; Wed, 22 Sep 93 05:41:34 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA04280; Wed, 22 Sep 93 06:39:55 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 22 Sep 93 6:40:29 EDT From: David Cake To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Improve (Skill) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 93 18:39:20 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <190AF791FA3@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu> > > > > Yes. I think Improve(Skill) is a real good idea, though I think that > > as it stands it is perhaps too powerful, I have a problem with good craftsmen > > This is something I've started writing on the Improve > (Skill) concept, currently imcomplete. I thought I'd > show it to the net to see everyones reaction: > > Generic "Improve (Skill)" Spells > > A while ago the idea of bundling the various skill > Note that this would cause a few changes in specific cult > improving spirit spells such as Bladesharp, Bludgeon > I like the idea of having Improve (Skill) to round out the skill list, I am not so keen on 'genericising' the existing spells. I think that Bladesharp should be a different spell to Improve (sword attack), and I can't think of why someone would use it instead of Bladesharp. Basically, I would rather add to, not change, the current spell systems. I also have a problem with the vagueness of cults getting appropriate spells, I think that each cult should get a limited number of Improve spells, same as normal spells. Many cults would get virtually none. > spells: Yelmalio for one would get Bladesharp. This > wouldn't bother me too much - Yelmalio currently has the > worst spell list imaginable for a warrior's god - but > it is against the myth that he was disarmed at the > Hill of Gold. Well, you are quite right, but I don't think that introducing Improve (Skill) as a spell necessarily implies that Yelmalio gets Bladesharp. Maybe Yelmalions do get Improve (spear), but not Bladesharp. It would make their spell list suck a little less, and still make them suffer for the Hill of Gold. The spell Parry, currently a Humakti > cult speel, would become much more generally > available. Again, I don't see how introducing Improve (sword parry) as a skill implies that non-Humakti get it as a cult spell. > > General Format: I think the best general format would > be +10% to skill per point for pure skill enhancement, > or +5%/+1 yield for those spells (like Bladesharp) that > add to the effectiveness as well as the chance of success. > Hmm, I guess this is about right. > No skill may be improved beyond twice the base skill ie > Regin knows Spear Attack at 25%: Improve(Edged Weapon attack) > a.k.a Bladesharp can only increase his attack chance to > 50%, no matter how strong a spell is used > Damn right. > Thus Mobility becomes +5% to Run, Manoever/+1 to MR per > point, Silence +10% to Sneak per point (bit downgraded > I know) etc. WHy mess with the spells that are already defined? > > This would provide characters with a much greater range > of spirit magic spells. Going through the various skill > categories: > > Agility > Many reasonable example deleted. > > Improve (Parry). Just like Humakti cult spirit magic. > Still don't like it! I still think it should be just like Humakt Spirit Magic, in that only Humakti have it! > Improve (Dodge). Logically, this spell would be +10% per > point, since there is nothing else too improve. Does this > seem too powerful? > Well, +5% per point would make it a really bad choice compared to Shimmer. I kind of like it - it means that beginning PCs can learn Improve dodge and then actually go into combat and try and dodge, and thus make a few experience checks. But who gets it? Everybody? Nobody? People with dodge as a cult skill? > > Communication > Many reasonable examples deleted. > > Improve (Speak Language): Usually only available for those Hmm.. I really don't like this. No good reason, just seems kind of too game mechanicy. > > Knowledge Skills I really dislike the idea of spells improving knowledge skills, and I think no spell should actually add to your knowledge, only your ability to use it (hey, maybe that is why I dislike Improve (language)!). I think that Chaosium do too, note that the description of Comprehension points out specifically that it dos nor add knowledge to the caster. In any case, I think that Comprehension should keep its monopoly. But there is a possibilty of some specific Improve (Lore) spells I guess. Maybe Improve Plant Lore, but it requires Elftouch of the plant? Stuff like that. > > [list to be continued, any ideas welcome. Common names for > the Improve(skill) spells very welcome!] And I trust criticism too :-) > > > A few questions for the list: > > i) How should Bladesharp be treated? RQ treats the combat > skills as micro skills, covering fairly narrow areas of > knowledge (as compared with, say, World Lore), but the > current Bladesharp enhances the ability of any edged or > pointed weapon (much to Nick Brooke's disgust :-)). > Should the Improve(weapon attack) spell be more narrowly > defined than RQ3 Bladesharp, or of a similar broad effect? > Lets keep Bladesharp. Lots of us like it, it is conceptualised as working differently to Improve sword, and removing it would introduce (needless) compatibilty hassles. > ii) What about skills which take more than 5 minutes to use? > How should the spells affect them? Craft skills in particular Well, I guess not, but I can still see craftsmen learning them, so as not to stuff up that crusial stage. > > iii) Speedart: should it remain in its current form, or become > a +5%/+1 damage spell that affects all appropriate missile > weapon attacks for the duration? Why change it? Speedart works quite differently to Improve (skill), so it needn't have similar game effects (ie Speedart improves a missile, Improve skill the firer). > > Graeme Lindsell a.k.a gal502@huxley.anu.edu.au > > Dave Cake  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA20207; Wed, 22 Sep 93 09:49:27 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA16841; Wed, 22 Sep 93 10:48:01 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 22 Sep 93 10:48:18 EDT From: David Dunham (via RadioMail) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Befuddle Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1993 07:47:39 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <194D1550512@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu> Yesterday's Calvin & Hobbes cartoon gave a reasonable justification for why Befuddle works the way it does. (Chaosium once gave me a similar reasoning, using picking ice cream as a sample: low INT simply goes for vanilla, while high INT has to debate between Trollkin Crunch and Anthrax Ripple.) David Dunham * Software Designer * Pensee Corporation Voice/Fax: 206-783-7404 * AppleLink: DDUNHAM * Internet: ddunham@radiomail.net (on the road in Schenectady)  0, answered,, *** EOOH *** Received: from indian.cs.utexas.edu by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA21135; Wed, 22 Sep 93 10:08:37 -0500 Date: Wed, 22 Sep 93 10:07:04 cdt From: miranker@cs.utexas.edu Posted-Date: Wed, 22 Sep 93 10:07:04 cdt Message-Id: <9309221507.AA00777@indian.cs.utexas.edu> Received: by indian.cs.utexas.edu (15.11/1.4-Client) id AA00777; Wed, 22 Sep 93 10:07:04 cdt To: gadbois@cs.utexas.edu Subject: [whit@cs.utexas.edu: Re: [gadbois: Extra memory]] From: whit@cs.utexas.edu (John W. Engel) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1993 15:32:57 -0500 X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.5 10/14/92) To: miranker@cs.utexas.edu Subject: Re: [gadbois: Extra memory] Got it, thanks. What size (M-byte) chips did you want? Whit -- John Whitworth Engel Department of Computer Sciences University of Texas voice: 512/471-9731 FAX: 512/471-8470 Net: whit@cs.utexas.edu  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA23237; Wed, 22 Sep 93 10:51:45 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA21024; Wed, 22 Sep 93 11:50:36 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 22 Sep 93 11:50:40 EDT From: David Cheng To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Befuddle Date: Wed, 22 Sep 93 11:49:31 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <195DCAE2266@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu> # Yesterday's Calvin & Hobbes cartoon gave a reasonable justification for why # Befuddle works the way it does. (Chaosium once gave me a similar reasoning, # using picking ice cream as a sample: low INT simply goes for vanilla, while # high INT has to debate between Trollkin Crunch and Anthrax Ripple.) # # David Dunham * Software Designer * Pensee Corporation On a very similar note, I always explain 'Befuddle' like this: Hitting someone with a Befuddle is kind of like spiritually whispering in their ear: "What is the sound of one hand clapping?" (or some other such profound question). An intelligent listener will pause, and say "hey, that's a good question..." A less intelligent foe will say "I don't care!" and will keep hitting you with his axe. -DC *David Cheng drcheng@sales.stern.nyu.edu / d.cheng@genie.geis.com Ask me about RuneQuest-Con! (212) 472-7752 [before midnight]  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA05566; Thu, 23 Sep 93 01:52:42 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA28396; Thu, 23 Sep 93 02:51:33 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 23 Sep 93 2:51:44 EDT From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Enough Is Enough! Date: Wed, 22 Sep 93 20:22:05 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <1A4E10C171E@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu> Pete c/o Tom Yates writes: > > RQ2 -- now, *that* appeals to me. Am I the only one who wants to > run RQ2, read RQ2 material, and pretend that the last ten years never > happened? > Are you the only one? No. Does that mean you're taking the right attitude? No. Game systems are like anything else: they either change and grow over time, or they fossilize. I've yet to see a change in a game system that did not leave a certain amount of people unhappy. That doesn't mean they should have left the system sancrosanct. The fact is, RQ was a second generation game. Compared to D&D, it did things in an immensely more sophisticated fashion. But it still was early in the development of RPGs, and made some mistakes. RQ3's faults were in the cases where additions were poorly thought out and/or playtested, not in it's attempt to make fixes and additions. Your milage, as always, may vary. ------------------------------ 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 AA05572; Thu, 23 Sep 93 01:52:47 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA28407; Thu, 23 Sep 93 02:51:45 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 23 Sep 93 2:51:49 EDT From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Re^n: RQ4 Diet Date: Wed, 22 Sep 93 20:29:47 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <1A4E1157DA2@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu> David Dunham (via RadioMail) writes: > I know you wrote what you meant, but I still think you're wrong. And then > you agree with me -- that you have to know the system in order to simplify > it. By definition, new GMs don't know the system, so they have to learn the > entire complex system before they can simplify it. This is a mistake in > rules presentation (made by e.g. ElfQuest). I definitely agree that adding > things will imbalance a game, but we're not asking people to do that, we're > asking them to buy a rules supplement where things have been thought > through (much of it being stuff that's already there today). But I'm not talking about the USER stripping it down or beefing it up: I'm talking about it being done at the design stage. If you design the whole engine, and are familiar with the design process, it's pretty easy to figure out what pieces can be removed without bollixing it up. It's much harder to do if you design a stripped down engine and then have to augment it later. That's why I favor presenting the whole thing, but presenting some parts of it as optional rules (and some of the simplications as optionals; there are some simplications I've seen in the RQLite discussions that I think seriously impact the game in a fashion more profound than just reducing level of detail). But I think designing the system and then trying to bolt extra material on later is a bad idea. > I'll say it again: I don't think any part of RQ has to be thrown away. I > think that RuneQuest should be presented in a way that it is clearly an > elegant, easy-to-use system (saying "New Streamlined Rules" on the box > isn't enough, it has to _look_ streamlined by virtue of being short), and > the best way to do that is to print the optional rules in a separate > publication. And there's where we part company. I've never been more annoyed than I have when I've found that what I've bought is the abbreviated version of the game. I also feel that having to go between two different books to find rules relating to one topic is suboptimal: they should be in the same area. Setting them off a bit is fine, but I've seen far too much of "was that in the main rules or a suppliment?" during games over the years. > Are you familiar with Prince Valiant? Only in a cursory fashion. > > BTW, I don't see RQ-Lite as a given, that's why I'm arguing that it's a > good idea and trying to show ways it could be done. > I have no objection to RQ-Lite per se; but I think having it either be the only version of the rules, or the main version with suppliment is not the right way to go. > > Presumably, marketing issues would be addressed in any new edition (be it a > full new RQ4 version, or RQ-Lite). And the most important one might be, > lose the box. That has to add at least $1 to the cost, and Avalon-Hill > doesn't know what size to make boxes anyway. > Well, we can agree on something, anyway. I've rarely seen a boxed RPG that seemed to justify the box, and RQ3 certainly wasn't among 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 AA00186; Fri, 24 Sep 93 22:15:08 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA12729; Fri, 24 Sep 93 23:13:42 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 24 Sep 93 23:14:08 EDT From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Re: RQ Magic Date: Thu, 23 Sep 93 01:03:28 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <1D140F1734A@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu> jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu writes: > the source material. This means that designers need to understand what sorce > is and is not WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE WORLD, in this case, Glorantha. They > can then devise rules to MODEL these concepts, not the other way around. > > I would like to see this. This rather leaves out in the cold those of us who use RQ for non-Gloranthan worlds, does it 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 AA27713; Wed, 22 Sep 93 20:32:55 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA20820; Wed, 22 Sep 93 21:31:41 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 22 Sep 93 21:31:51 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Improve (Skill) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 93 11:31:10 GMT Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <19F8C2C6DC4@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu> > > A while ago the idea of bundling the various skill > > Note that this would cause a few changes in specific cult > > improving spirit spells such as Bladesharp, Bludgeon > > > I like the idea of having Improve (Skill) to round out the skill list, I am > not so keen on 'genericising' the existing spells. I think that Bladesharp > should be a different spell to Improve (sword attack), and I can't think of > why someone would use it instead of Bladesharp. > Basically, I would rather add to, not change, the current spell systems. > I also have a problem with the vagueness of cults getting appropriate spells, I > think that each cult should get a limited number of Improve spells, same as > normal spells. Many cults would get virtually none. I think most cults should get a limited number, yes. I don't think many would get none though. Almost all cults have some skills they require some people to demonstrate, and it's a small list of these that each cult would get. I also advocate limits on the size of spell spirits available to cults. This does cause some problem with cults such as Lhankor Mhy that has "so-and-so skill in any Lore" as one of its requirements. I would say the five or so most important Lore skills in the area you join would be available: the other Lore skills would be harder if not impossible to find. > The spell Parry, currently a Humakti > > cult speel, would become much more generally > > available. > > Again, I don't see how introducing Improve (sword parry) as a skill implies > that non-Humakti get it as a cult spell. Parry is not sword only: it can be cast on any weapon that parries as far as I know. (Aside: does anyone else think that Humakt having Parry as a unique cult spell is really, really odd?). A cult for whom shield parry is an important cult skill (I think Yelmalio is one) should get Improve(Shield parry) IMHO. > > Thus Mobility becomes +5% to Run, Manoever/+1 to MR per > > point, Silence +10% to Sneak per point (bit downgraded > > I know) etc. > > WHy mess with the spells that are already defined? See below. > > > Improve (Dodge). Logically, this spell would be +10% per > I kind of like it - it means that beginning PCs can learn Improve dodge and > then actually go into combat and try and dodge, and thus make a few experience > checks. But who gets it? Everybody? Nobody? People with dodge as a cult skill? People with Dodge as an important cult skill (can't think of too many off hand) or tribes for whom Dodge is an important tribal skill (perhaps the enemies of the Rhino riders, no use parrying). > > I really dislike the idea of spells improving knowledge skills, and > I think no spell should actually add to your knowledge, only your ability to > use it (hey, maybe that is why I dislike Improve (language)!). I think that > Chaosium do too, note that the description of Comprehension points out > specifically that it dos nor add knowledge to the caster. > In any case, I think that Comprehension should keep its monopoly. But > there is a possibilty of some specific Improve (Lore) spells I guess. Maybe > Improve Plant Lore, but it requires Elftouch of the plant? Stuff like that. Comprehension is still more powerful: it adds to every lore, while you need specific spells for each Lore with Improve(Lore). As for how the spell works there are a number of ways: in an animist system it would be a spirit whispering answers in your ear; in another system it may be mnemonics about the Lore in question, or even a kind of magical memory which you have commited the scrolls to. > > > > > [list to be continued, any ideas welcome. Common names for > > the Improve(skill) spells very welcome!] > > And I trust criticism too :-) > > > Lets keep Bladesharp. Lots of us like it, it is conceptualised as working > differently to Improve sword, and removing it would introduce (needless) > compatibilty hassles. > Working differently? I think I haven't explained my point here. To me, Improve(Skill) is a game mechanic, not a spell that works in a specific way. A Dara Happan's Improve(Orate) might work by projecting the voice better, and giving it a deeper, more resonant tone; an Orlanthi's Improve (Orate) would work by have the wind spirits carry your voice to the ears of your listeners. I'm proposing a consistent mechanic to give the various skill enhancing spirit magic spells similar effects, which is why I'm trying to define Bladesharp, Speedart etc in the same framework. Some Improve spells may effect the user, some the tools. My motive is to allow us to expand the list away from the current combat oriented spells, and the resultant PC's with lots of combat spells. In reply to another, yes I've seen the attempt to give non-combat uses for the current magic spells: I thought it was a bit strained. Those spells were all conceived as combat spells, I would like to see some spells that weren't. I just don't see why common easy to learn petty magic spells all seem to have combat applications. > > iii) Speedart: should it remain in its current form, or become > > a +5%/+1 damage spell that affects all appropriate missile > > weapon attacks for the duration? > Why change it? Speedart works quite differently to Improve (skill), so > it needn't have similar game effects (ie Speedart improves a missile, Improve > skill the firer). Speedart works very similarly to Improve(skill) in terms of game mechanics. I'm told the RQ1 speedart was similar to Bladesharp. As for why I want to fit the older spells into the same mechanic, I don't like mechanics with too many exceptions. I would like the spirit magic spells to be rather more coherent. Just a prejudice. > Dave Cake 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 AA21504; Thu, 23 Sep 93 17:12:58 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA10624; Thu, 23 Sep 93 18:11:26 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 23 Sep 93 18:11:51 EDT From: Pete c/o Tom Yates To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Enough Is Enough! Date: Thu, 23 Sep 93 18:11:02 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <1B437027C01@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu> *Wayne Shaw writes: WS> Pete c/o Tom Yates writes: WS> > WS> > RQ2 -- now, *that* appeals to me. Am I the only one who want WS> > run RQ2, read RQ2 material, and pretend that the last ten years ne WS> > happened? WS> > WS> Are you the only one? No. Does that mean you're taking the right WS> attitude? No. Game systems are like anything else: they either WS> change and grow over time, or they fossilize. I've yet to see a WS> change in a game system that did not leave a certain amount of WS> people unhappy. That doesn't mean they should have left the WS> system sancrosanct. Hmm, this is a thread from long ago. Let me clarify my meaning: I feel that RQ2 is a more enjoyable system than RQ3 -- it is better written, better organized, and the design is cleaner and easier to deal with. I also admired the fact that the whole system came in a single book -- particularly because of the outstanding quality of the red hardcover version (my copy is still in great shape after many years of hard use). That doesn't mean that I don't want to see RQ change. It simply means that given the options that I've seen so far -- RQ2, RQ3, and the myriad proposed rules for RQ4 -- I find the idea of playing RQ2 to be most appealing on a gut level. It was a better game. Nonetheless, it would be difficult to go back to a pure RQ2 system now, and if I were planning to be running RQ I'd use a mixture of RQ2, 3, and some of the 4 rules. As for the rest of it, my remarks were a reaction to a feeling that much of the RQ discussion going on here on the Net was nitpicking, of the "How many Impests can dance on the head of a pin?" variety. An overreaction, perhaps. But I do have grave doubts as to how much good all this talk is doing for RQ. No, I'm not saying we should stop; but at the same time, isn't there some more direct and positive action that could be taken? As a wild idea, what if every reader of the Digest and the playtest discussion were to simultaneously start runnign a new RQ game, with at least two or three non-RQ-players in each one? It might be particularly odd (though interesting) if all those games were to be run from the same original concept or setup. Observing all the different permutations that might result from the same beginning would be extremely intriguing... Just a wild idea. -->Pete ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Maranci Malden, Massachusetts pete@slough.mit.edu or rune@trystero.com or rune@ace.com "We need its light, we need its heat, we need its energy...without the Sun without a doubt there'd be no you and me." -TMBG  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA06193; Thu, 23 Sep 93 22:45:17 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA20170; Thu, 23 Sep 93 23:44:07 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 23 Sep 93 23:44:17 EDT From: jjm@zycor.lgc.com (johnjmedway) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: why change spirit magic? Date: Thu, 23 Sep 93 22:43:18 CDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <1B9C2D96561@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu> joerg: ------ >> I think that spirits as well as the spirit plane need more colour. >> About two months ago I tried to get some controverse by describing the >> existing rules constructs a bit more from the world point of view, but >> I got no reactions. Shall I repost my ideas? Please. joerg: ------ >> Which kind of character woud go to a shaman? How frequent (and >> socially accepted) are Orlanthi Kolatings (wind shamans)? What would be >> their equivalent in Dara Happan society? Yelm the one-eyed shaman? >> Which mother in Lunar society has shamanic powers? Which position would >> that be in Esrolia? Would there be Subere shamans in Kethaela (among >> Argan Argar cultists)? Maybe we're being too sloppy, and/or too strict with the term "shaman". Remember the discussion of ancestor worship, back a month or so. The part- icular example I want to bring to mind is that of Duke Raus, and the wor- ship of his ancestry. Some wise uncle, or Raus himself, has to function as a priest-shaman, or the worship would not have the proper focus to help the family. Perhaps it is a looser definition than "shaman" that we want to use here. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 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 AA00349; Fri, 24 Sep 93 22:26:05 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA13007; Fri, 24 Sep 93 23:25:01 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 24 Sep 93 23:25:06 EDT From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Re: Animistic spirit magic and shamans Date: Fri, 24 Sep 93 01:06:14 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <1D1718068B2@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu> gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) writes: > I don't think it would. In the games I've played, most PC's tend to > cast their own (temporal) spellls on themselves, only casting it on > other players in special circumstances. The main exceptions are attack I think this is awfully group and campaign dependent. We've got one skirmisher type in the RQIV playtest I'm running that tends to stay back from the action as much as possible, but makes it up by casting temporal spells on the real combatants as needed. The group's sorcerer is also at least as likely to throw a spell on someone else as on himself. 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 AA16622; Mon, 27 Sep 93 13:45:29 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA07918; Mon, 27 Sep 93 14:43:42 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 27 Sep 93 14:44:27 EDT From: David Dunham (via RadioMail) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Re^n: RQ4 Diet Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1993 19:04:45 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <210C278259A@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu> >But I'm not talking about the USER stripping it down or beefing it up: >I'm talking about it being done at the design stage. If you design the >whole engine, and are familiar with the design process, it's pretty easy >to figure out what pieces can be removed without bollixing it up. It's >much harder to do if you design a stripped down engine and then have to >augment it later. Yes, absolutely. The full RQ4 (with the possible exception of sorcery) should be figured out, and then the essentials published. BTW, I recently sent my step-daughter a copy of ElfQuest. She had some trouble with the rules, despite the page that said that much of the rules were optional. This reinforces my belief that the complications must be optional, rather than the simplifications -- even when I told her of that section, she seemed not to want to use it (perhaps she wanted to play the "official" game? I haven't talked to her since). David Dunham * Software Designer * Pensee Corporation Voice/Fax: 206-783-7404 * AppleLink: DDUNHAM * Internet: ddunham@radiomail.net  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA28205; Sun, 26 Sep 93 04:38:27 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA10208; Sun, 26 Sep 93 05:37:00 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 26 Sep 93 5:37:25 EDT From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Re: Enough Is Enough! Date: Sun, 26 Sep 93 02:03:46 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <1EFA5EF2BAF@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu> Pete c/o Tom Yates writes: > > Hmm, this is a thread from long ago. Let me clarify my meaning: Sorry about that, my Internet source was unavailable for three weeks, so I'm playing catchup on a LOT of past mail in here and the Champions list. I tried to keep responses to the early ones down as much as possible. > > I feel that RQ2 is a more enjoyable system than RQ3 -- it is better > written, better organized, and the design is cleaner and easier to deal > with. I also admired the fact that the whole system came in a single book -- > particularly because of the outstanding quality of the red hardcover version > (my copy is still in great shape after many years of hard use). Okay. Unfortunately, I can't agree with a number of these. I don't see appreciable differences in writing or organization. I can agree with physical construction: flipping between the first two RQ3 books has been a persistant annoyance, and the only reason my copies have held together was that I promptly reinforced the spines with library binding tape. > > That doesn't mean that I don't want to see RQ change. It simply > means that given the options that I've seen so far -- RQ2, RQ3, and the > myriad proposed rules for RQ4 -- I find the idea of playing RQ2 to > be most appealing on a gut level. It was a better game. And that's where we really part company. I consider RQ3 one of thone net neutral evolutions. Two steps forward, two steps back. But in one area it was a great improvement for me. I don't run Glorantha. I run original worlds. (Yes, I know that puts me a bit out of the mainstream in this mailing list). RQ1 & 2 had good basic systems (though by my current standards, overly random character gen...one of the areas where RQIII WAS worse) but the magical assumptions were appallingly world specific. RQ3 DID make these more broad in scope; while not a perfect match to every possible world, they were less incredibly specific than those in RQ2 (this was true even of divine magic: elements like the overwhelming importance of the cult structure, and the existance of the rune lord are not exclusive to Glorantha, but they are considerably off the mainstream.) and therefor made it easier to adapt the system to a wider variety of world designs without either distorting the world design excessively, or having to do a bunch of rework on new magic systems. I also felt the true percentil system was a more appropriate use of the percentile base than the 5% steps. There were other smaller features I felt were improvements. The only major counter improvements were the clumsy fatigue system (I like the current system, but that one was broken) and the even more random character gen. The sorcery system was an example of two forward, two back: a not basically unreasonable approach that did not seem completely thought out. > As a wild idea, what if every reader of the Digest and the playtest > discussion were to simultaneously start runnign a new RQ game, > with at least two or three non-RQ-players in each one? Unfortunately, the gaming groups you have are often dictated by factors you cannot completely control. The group I'm running the game for contains one person who is new to RQ, and one person with some previous experience with it who is mildly hostile to the system. But that's a coincidence of timing, not planning. > > It might be particularly odd (though interesting) if all > those games were to be run from the same original concept or setup. > Observing all the different permutations that might result from > the same beginning would be extremely intriguing... > An interesting idea, but one that requires more coordination and such than I think is practicable. ------------------------------ 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 AA08689; Mon, 27 Sep 93 22:13:26 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01966; Mon, 27 Sep 93 23:12:14 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 27 Sep 93 23:12:23 EDT From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Re: Re^n: RQ4 Diet Date: Mon, 27 Sep 93 18:29:44 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <2193D162881@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu> David Dunham (via RadioMail) writes: > > Yes, absolutely. The full RQ4 (with the possible exception of sorcery) > should be figured out, and then the essentials published. Well, I have somewhat LESS objections to that. > > BTW, I recently sent my step-daughter a copy of ElfQuest. She had some > trouble with the rules, despite the page that said that much of the rules > were optional. This reinforces my belief that the complications must be > optional, rather than the simplifications -- even when I told her of that It's not the idea of having a simplified core rules that bothers me: it's the idea of presenting ONLY those in the main document. As I said elsewhere, having to hunt all over for the rules I'm actually using does not appeal to me. ------------------------------ 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 AA09522; Mon, 27 Sep 93 22:45:47 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA02879; Mon, 27 Sep 93 23:44:34 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 27 Sep 93 23:44:37 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RQ4 Diet Date: Tue, 28 Sep 93 13:43:54 GMT Reply-To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <219C7D6616F@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu> Wayne Shaw writes: > It's not the idea of having a simplified core rules that bothers me: it's > the idea of presenting ONLY those in the main document. As I said > elsewhere, having to hunt all over for the rules I'm actually using does > not appeal to me. I agree. I have the GDW edition of RQ split into 2 hardback books. The hardback books are very decent quality, and the set has lasted much longer than the flimsy stuff you find inside AH's boxed sets (my Cults Book from GoG is near to disintegration), but it's a lot of trouble for me to find which rule is in which book, and to ignore the duplication of rules. I like the single thick hardbound book approach for RPG's, hopefully not shrinkwrapped, so I can browse before I buy. Chaosium doesn't hardbind, but all of its RPG's I've seen lately are in this format. If the diet stuff was very clearly marked (different page colours?) at the start of each major section (Charactercreation, Skills, Magic, Combat) then I would have no complaints. It would also allow people to add whichever advanced rules they wanted. > shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) or qed!shadow  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA25412; Mon, 25 Oct 93 06:37:31 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA12168; Mon, 25 Oct 93 07:35:34 -0400 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 25 Oct 93 7:36:11 EDT From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Rune Lords Date: Thu, 09 Sep 1993 00:12:04 MEZ Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <9F78B64D28@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> In <3E26E85323@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu>, you write: >>From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) >>And King of Sartar made clear that their importance was greater than RQ3 >>made us believe (not that RQ3 did say much about Rune Lords...). > Rune Lords are not mentioned at all on p.245... Where do you get the > impression that Rune Lords are like clan leaders? (I haven't gone back and > done much looking, but I can't find it in KoS.) Look at the chapters for chieftain (p. 251f) and king (p. 255f), and compare them to the Orlanth write-up in River of Cradles. You'll find lot's of parallels. If you still have them, about a month ago I argued about sacerdotal kings in the Daily. Their spiritual duties make them effectively a class of Rune Lords. Chieftains are similar in most regards, and can you imagine people skilled at mundane skills as well as in spiritual leadership more effective than Rune Lords? Ok, the phrase "Rune Lord" is never mentioned. Neither are runes. But there are holy people (p. 245) such as Swords of Humakt - i.e. Rune Lords. -- Joerg Baumgartner rq4@sartar.toppoint.de