Babyl Options: Append:1 Version:5 Reformat-Headers-P Summary-Window-Format: Use Default  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.19/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA12095; Fri, 17 Dec 93 00:02:32 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA20462; Fri, 17 Dec 93 01:02:03 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 17 Dec 93 0:59:31 EDT From: "Newton" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: death to strike ranks Date: Thu, 16 Dec 93 23:59:50 CST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <2A7A5036F5C@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Haven't seen anything on the RQ4 list for a while, so thought I'd toss this random thingy out: phase-oriented melee rounds for RQ This is an attempt to come up with an alternative solution to melee sequencing besides Strike Ranks, DEX ranks, or roundless combat. One of my main goals here is to encourage lots of maneuvering around, and to integrate mounted combat into the system more naturally, without getting entangled in simultaneous movement. Note that some points in these rules are not strictly in keeping with RQ3, especially the parts about spells and missiles, but have more in common with Elric!. In this case I don't think you have to trade off realism for simplic- ity. (I did make some trades, I guess, as mentioned in the preceding paragraph, but the things I traded don't strike me as particularly realistic. You might disagree, of course :) And, yes, this has been playtested, through not strenuously yet. I can't find any more bugs in it, but I'm sure someone will enlighten me. ---- Each round is broken down into the following phases, executed in order: A. Fire Phase: spells and missile fire. Resolved in order of greatest to least DEX. B. Charge Phase: movement (no disengaging allowed). Resolved in order of greatest to least Move Rate, with ties broken by DEX. A character can delay his move and force slower opponents to move first if he wants. (comes in handy for mounted vs. dismounted fighting--let 'em run, then spit 'em on yer lance) C. Melee Phase: close combat. Resolved in order of least to greatest Weapon SRM (or optionally, least to greatest Melee SR). D. Retreat Phase: overrun movement, retreating and running away. Resolve in same order as Phase B above. NOTES Movement: A character's Move Rate = m/SR + 5. Multiply the Move Rate by some appropriate number (3 for open terrain outdoors) to get the number of meters covered per round, Elric!-style. A broo would cover ((4 m/SR) + 5) * 3 = 27 meters per round. Engaged Status: once a character moves adjacent to an enemy, he must cease moving; he can disengage only during Phase D. Running Away and Retreating: only characters who did not act during Phases A-C of the current round (not counting parrying or dodging) may run away at full Move. Other characters may retreat up to their Move Rate/3 in meters. Characters who retreat may not move in Phase B of the following round (EXCEPTION: a character with Move Rate at least 4 greater than his opponent's Move Rate may move in Phase B of the following round). Missile Fire: 1/SR = 1/MR. No one gets more than one missile or spell-cast per round. All spells take one round to cast, Elric!-style (not counting time spent on ceremony ritual, etc.). Attacking on the Run: A character can move up to his Move Rate in meters during Phase B without his movement counting as one of his two actions per round. (Of course when a character is mounted his mount does the moving for him, so he doesn't worry about this.) Overrun Movement: a mounted character who charges into battle (charging with lance, for example) must continue moving during Phase D, for a number of meters equal to the mount's Move Rate. ---- That's all. Amazing what you can accomplish when you're supposed to be studying. --Newton  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.19/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA13904; Fri, 17 Dec 93 00:44:56 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA21334; Fri, 17 Dec 93 01:44:55 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 17 Dec 93 1:41:55 EDT From: David Dunham (via RadioMail) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: death to strike ranks Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1993 22:44:35 PST 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" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <2A85BEA0FC9@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >A. Fire Phase: spells and missile fire. >B. Charge Phase: movement (no disengaging allowed). >C. Melee Phase: close combat. >D. Retreat Phase: overrun movement, retreating and running away. One of the problems we had with one of the RQ4 versions was that the two movement phases meant (in practice at least) two statements of intent. Are all phases intented at the beginning of the round? If so, you need very loose intents, since Fire Phase could drop someone you no longer need to run next to and kill. David Dunham * Software Designer * Pensee Corporation Voice/Fax: 206 783 7404 * AppleLink: DDUNHAM * Internet: ddunham@radiomail.net "I say we should listen to the customers and give them what they want." "What they want is better products for free." --Scott Adams  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.19/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA19000; Fri, 17 Dec 93 03:47:44 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA24177; Fri, 17 Dec 93 04:47:40 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 17 Dec 93 4:44:44 EDT From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: death to strike ranks Date: Fri, 17 Dec 93 01:24:50 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <2AB67C55A94@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> "Newton" writes: > > Each round is broken down into the following phases, executed in order: > > A. Fire Phase: spells and missile fire. Resolved in order of greatest > to least DEX. > > B. Charge Phase: movement (no disengaging allowed). Resolved in order > of greatest to least Move Rate, with ties broken by DEX. A character > can delay his move and force slower opponents to move first if he wants. > (comes in handy for mounted vs. dismounted fighting--let 'em run, then > spit 'em on yer lance) Couple of things on this; this sort of operation in the past has often demonstrated itself as being FAR too beneficial to missile and magic users especially if fast. Under the current rules, if not prepared they probably not get off a missile or spell attack until someone is already on top of them at close quarters. Under your set up, this is not the case. ------------------------------ shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) or qed!shadow The QED BBS -- (310)420-9327  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.19/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA20519; Fri, 17 Dec 93 04:52:22 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25087; Fri, 17 Dec 93 05:52:20 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 17 Dec 93 5:49:20 EDT From: Malcolm Cohen To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: death to strike ranks Date: Fri, 17 Dec 93 10:51:19 WET Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <2AC7B7B417E@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > One of the problems we had with one of the RQ4 versions was that the two > movement phases meant (in practice at least) two statements of intent. Are I think you must be taking statements of intent far too seriously. They are not a contract between the character and the world after all. > all phases intented at the beginning of the round? If so, you need very Well, yes but... [*] > loose intents, since Fire Phase could drop someone you no longer need to > run next to and kill. Why do you think this is a bug? Looks like a feature to me. If something unexpected like an opponent disappearing occurs, it would seem perfectly reasonable to require a character who was about to run over to them to spend a few seconds looking around to see what it up/where is someone else to fight. Or perhaps you run in a mega-legalistic game; like if a player says "and after I chop this one down I move over to this one on the end", and said end one dies/disappears, it is insisted that the character cannot move to as they obviously intended (i.e. the "new" end one on the line). Obviously there is "reasonable" scope for decision-making throughout the entire melee round (e.g. it is even explicitly stated that you do not need to decide what to parry until the SR on which the attack occurs). And this happens with movement as well; otherwise the "movement abort" would be useless (with a legalistic view of the statement of intent) since one could not use the extra movement thus obtained! [*] Although I do require both movement and melee to have intent specified (in the one statement, not two!) I allow "reasonable" changes, particularly to post-melee movement, without worrying too much about it. Perhaps this is due to my habit of not bothering with figures, battlemats etc. for minor fights but just sketching the scene with words. Of course for longer fights figures etc are useful (as is writing down hit point losses for the NPCs) but I still allow characters to do what seems reasonable and obvious without being too picky. -- ...........................Malcolm Cohen, NAG Ltd., Oxford, U.K. (malcolm@nag.co.uk)  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.19/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA20714; Fri, 17 Dec 93 05:02:37 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25205; Fri, 17 Dec 93 06:02:36 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 17 Dec 93 5:59:35 EDT From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Development of Cults and Sorcery from Shamanism Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1993 03:01:40 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <2ACA7DD5773@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> One aspect that has been missing from any Runequest that I have seen is a good explanation of how cults and sorcery might develop from shamanistic practices. RuneQuest 3 moved to further seperate Shamen and Priests. I felt this weakened the magic ecology that existed within earlier versions. The addition of Sorcerers was not a bad thing in themselves but their magic system was appalling. One good thing RuneQuest 3 provided was the differing kinds of spirits. The absence of Disease spirits in earlier editions was a glaring omission. In the earlier additions there were suggestions of a Power economy which could enable a Shamen who encountered a Diety on the spirit plane to establish a cult and receive Rune Magic as a priest of that Deity. In whatever forms of magic Runequest 4 plumps for I think there should be guidelines and discussions on how a particular type of magic could be derived from another. Part of this should include a re-unification of the magic system. Magic should be socially applicable to it's setting and if Runequest 4 seeks to straddle a number of fantasy genres then a flexible, extendable and characterfull magic system is needed. Offering seperate, disconnected magic systems is not a good way of providing this. Regards, -- Guy Robinson --  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.19/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA02960; Fri, 17 Dec 93 09:56:35 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA08779; Fri, 17 Dec 93 10:56:24 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 17 Dec 93 10:52:38 EDT From: Malcolm Cohen To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: death to strike ranks Date: Fri, 17 Dec 93 15:55:28 WET Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <2B18D1C5FCE@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > This is an attempt to come up with an alternative solution to melee > sequencing besides Strike Ranks, DEX ranks, or roundless combat. One My view is that (1) Strike Ranks work as effectively (give realistic enough combat, are easy enough to use) as any other proposed mechanism, (2) Strike Ranks are what we are used to since RQ1, RQ2, RQ3, ... i.e. they are RuneQuest-like. In particular, I see no reason to look much further than the tuning offered by the RQ4 draft. More tuning, yes -- rewrite from the ground up, no. > of my main goals here is to encourage lots of maneuvering around, and It seems that one of RQ4's goals was to DIScourage lots of manoeuvres (since this new skill effectively reduces it from the previous assumed 100%). I am probably one of the few people who like the "maneuver" (sic) skill but I admit I wish they had chosen a name which was spelt properly! > Each round is broken down into the following phases, executed in order: > > A. Fire Phase: spells and missile fire. Resolved in order of greatest > to least DEX. Wow, spells and missiles get off really quickly under this system. Looks like AD&D. > C. Melee Phase: close combat. Resolved in order of least to greatest > Weapon SRM (or optionally, least to greatest Melee SR). Hang on, I thought you had said that you were replacing Strike Ranks, not leaving them in as an optional rule. > D. Retreat Phase: overrun movement, retreating and running away. > Resolve in same order as Phase B above. Well, apart from the spurious "fire phase" which I really hate, this is not entirely unlike the RQ4 order, particularly with the optional rule "use strike ranks". > Movement: A character's Move Rate = m/SR + 5. Multiply the Move Rate by some Oh good, so a rock has a Move Rate of 5, just as well they do not want to go anywhere. I suppose a snail has a Move Rate of approx 5 as well (and a human has a Move Rate of 8); funny, I was sure I could crawl more than twice as fast as a snail. You are also confusing terms; in RQ terminology, a human's Move Rate is 3; they do not have a "m/SR" of 3. This is *particularly* true in the RQ4 draft! > appropriate number (3 for open terrain outdoors) to get the number of meters ^^^^^^^^ More AD&D; a roof over my head will not slow me down. > Engaged Status: once a character moves adjacent to an enemy, he must cease > moving; he can disengage only during Phase D. Presumably because the "enemy" trips one up? Nonononono. Overly simplified rules of engagement are worse than none at all; I have no problems with this being optional in RQ4 draft. > Running Away and Retreating: only characters who did not act during Phases A-C This is more complicated than RQ4 draft, i.e. too complicated. > Missile Fire: 1/SR = 1/MR. No one gets more than one missile or spell-cast Well, the French will certainly win at Agincourt under these rules. Seriously, longbows fire a ***LOT*** faster than once every 12 (or even 6 with RQ4) seconds. > per round. All spells take one round to cast, Elric!-style (not counting time > spent on ceremony ritual, etc.). Big spells are awfully quick! Definitely an encouragement to cast bigger spells and not little bladesharps etc. > Overrun Movement: a mounted character who charges into battle (charging with This looks fairly reasonable; surely handling this sort of thing is just another clause to the existing combat system though, why rewrite the whole system just for this? I will admit to a biased viewpoint here; in my world (as in the Ancient World on Earth, according to my limited knowledge) cavalry and mounted combat are not common. -- ...........................Malcolm Cohen, NAG Ltd., Oxford, U.K. (malcolm@nag.co.uk)  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.19/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA22439; Fri, 17 Dec 93 15:13:47 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA28628; Fri, 17 Dec 93 16:13:05 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 17 Dec 93 16:09:24 EDT From: "Newton" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: re: death to sr's Date: Fri, 17 Dec 93 14:55:29 CST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <2B6D3874573@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> George W. Harris at gharris@jade.tufts.edu says >Never! This is what I expected. :) I didn't think you all would stand up and applaud. I appreciate the comments, though, and take them seriously. (>>'s are me quoted by my detractors, re-quoted by me) >The main thing that I dislike about it is its feel, which strikes me as >very war-gamey. Now, don't get me wrong, war games are fine, but I dont >want them mucking about in my role-playing. Next thing you know. . . . Yeah, it's wargamey; you mean SRs aren't? Wargames are about simulating combat, and so are the RQ combat rules. The question is whether it works, that is, whether it encourages players to make realistic choices for their characters w/out entangling them in complex rules so that they spend more time thinking about rules than about said characters. What feels wargamey about my proposal is probably that it abstracts what goes on below the level of the melee round, without getting into second by second stuff. >Another thing I dislike about this system is that it seems >dreadfully egalitarian. "No more than one spell or missile weapon >action can be taken per round." So, it doesn't matter if I'm a >Dex 6 Trollkin or a Dex 22 Elf, I still get one bowshot off a round. >It doesn't matter if I'm casting Disruption or if I'm casting >an Intensity 10 Range 5 Multispell 6 Remove Life, each spell >takes effectively the same amount of time. No, thank you. Objection noted. My own point of view is that DEX by itself is not that significant. In the middle of a combat situation, you're busy looking around trying to figure who's where and what's going on, it's confusing and frightening and how well-coordinated you are isn't particularly relevant. High DEX characters just panic faster. I like the intro to the Hand-to-Hand rules in Elric where it lists the attributes of skilled fighters-- reflexes honed by practice and experience, also utter fearlessness. High DEX isn't on the list. When I see a tough fighter I don't say, "You know, I bet he'd make a good pianist, or maybe a surgeon." I say, "Yow, he's one bad SOB." The danger involved in writing tactical-level rules is that you'll write complex technical rules that let characters do things they could never possibly do because things are too chaotic. I remember a Civil War regimental-level wargame with involved rules for retreating before melee, that doubled the playing time of the game, when in reality the maneuver described by the rules was entirely implausible, given the chaos ensuing when closing with the enemy, can't hear your CO for the gunfire, not paying attention even if you could, if you did hear and pay attention half the unit would rout, etc. Leading me to the conclusion, that when writing tactical rules, chaos is your friend. George Harris' quotes end here. in response to Malcolm Cohen, NAG Ltd., Oxford, U.K.(malcom@nag.co.uk) >>Each round is broken down into the following phases, executed in order: >> >>A. Fire Phase: spells and missile fire. Resolved in order of greatest >>to least DEX. >Wow, spells and missiles get off really quickly under this system. Loos like >AD&D. Actually, spells take a whole round to cast, so your chance of getting scragged before you can get a spell off is higher under this proposal. I agree the super-death sorcery spells should take more than 1 round. >>C. Melee Phase: close combat. Resolved in order of least to greatest >>Weapon SRM (or optionally, least to greatest Melee SR). >Hang on, I thought you had said that you were replacing Strike Ranks, nt >leaving them in as an optional rule. I left them in for folks who don't like simultaneous hits. As far as I'm concerned, I'd leave 'em out, and bring on the simultaneous hits. >>Movement: A character's Move Rate = m/SR + 5. Multiply the Move Rate by some >Oh good, so a rock has a Move Rate of 5, just as well they do not want o go >anywhere. I suppose a snail has a Move Rate of approx 5 as well (and ahuman >has a Move Rate of 8); funny, I was sure I could crawl more than twice s fast >as a snail. Obviously it breaks down below 3, multiply the m/SR by 3 instead, so we don't have to worry about the crawling rocks. (There's an old JG module with ambulatory rocks, I think, hmm.) As far as the current move rates go, I don't understand how the rule-makers reached the con- clusion that horses can move over 3 times as fast as people. By that standard, I think my version is closer to reality. >You are also confusing terms; in RQ terminology, a human's Move Rate is3; they >do not have a "m/SR" of 3. This is *particularly* true in the RQ4 draf! In RQ3 humans have m/SR of 3. RQ4 isn't published yet, and I haven't seen the movement rules in the soda archives, so I wouldn't know. I admittedly didn't use kosher terminology, but at least you could tell what I was getting at. >>appropriate number (3 for open terrain outdoors) to get the number of meters ^^^^^^^^ >More AD&D; a roof over my head will not slow me down. Granted, but walls and tight corners will. Probably instead of chang- ing the multiplier there should just be an understanding that you can't go charging at full speed through 90 degree turns, etc. >>Engaged Status: once a character moves adjacent to an enemy, he must cease >>moving; he can disengage only during Phase D. >Presumably because the "enemy" trips one up? Nonononono. Nobody's getting tripped up, I just wanted to avoid the Zebra rider vs. Storm Buller problem discussed some months ago. The point is to make sure that if you come close to somebody he can get in a swing before you move away again, without the bother of opportunity melee. This way, people charge and come together, they fight, and then retreats and overruns and such take place. It also keeps fleeing from being too easy. >>Missile Fire: 1/SR = 1/MR. No one gets more than one missile or spell-cast >Well, the French will certainly win at Agincourt under these rules. Seiously, >longbows fire a ***LOT*** faster than once every 12 (or even 6 with RQ4 >seconds. The French's problem at Agincourt wasn't longbows firing 15 shots/round. The silly fools charged into a mudhole and got stuck. The Agincourt-style volley is the exact opposite of firing and reloading as fast as you can. People firing and reloading quickly lose their cool and screw up, wasting their ammunition. The point of volley fire is to load deliberately and wait until your officer gives the order to let fly; it keeps the troops steady and maximizes the effectiveness of their fire. (This is a point Elric! entirely misses, btw., in the spot rules.) The question of how many shots can you fire per round depends on whether you're safe on an archery practice field with a stationary target or in the middle of a bloodbath with all Hell breaking loose. Even in a live wargame, I can tell you it plays Hell with your concentration. But I covered this above. >I will admit to a biased viewpoint here; in my world (as in the AncientWorld >on Earth, according to my limited knowledge) cavalry and mounted combatare not >common. They're common in Prax, though. Since that's the main setting in print it's crazy not to have straightforward rules for mounted combat. --Newton  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.19/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA24156; Fri, 17 Dec 93 15:45:26 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA00522; Fri, 17 Dec 93 16:45:20 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 17 Dec 93 16:41:26 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: re: death to sr's Date: Fri, 17 Dec 93 16:45:01 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <2B75E3D7859@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Strangely, some of the best fighters that I know in the SCA are piano players, players, surgeons, and guitarists... they tend to buy really good gauntlets. - Paul  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.19/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA06382; Fri, 17 Dec 93 19:35:52 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA10384; Fri, 17 Dec 93 20:35:31 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 17 Dec 93 20:31:56 EDT From: Carl Fink To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Strike Ranks Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1993 20:35:15 -0500 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <2BB34425497@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Without going into any details at this point, the draft currently at Avalon Hill is a combination of phased and SR, with SR's used mainly to determine order within a phase.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.19/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA02754; Sat, 18 Dec 93 02:12:51 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA18503; Sat, 18 Dec 93 03:12:25 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 18 Dec 93 3:07:14 EDT From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Strike Ranks Date: Sat, 18 Dec 93 00:04:22 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <2C1D29F0631@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Carl Fink writes: > Without going into any details at this point, the draft currently at > Avalon Hill is a combination of phased and SR, with SR's used mainly to > determine order within a phase. > There's a draft AT AH? Jeez, I though the project was pretty much dead? ------------------------------ shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) or qed!shadow The QED BBS -- (310)420-9327  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.20/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA19073; Tue, 21 Dec 93 16:46:18 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA16194; Tue, 21 Dec 93 17:46:11 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 21 Dec 93 17:47:07 EDT From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: death to sr's Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1993 12:05:20 MEZ Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <31864B77C49@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> "Newton" writes: >>>Missile Fire: 1/SR = 1/MR. No one gets more than one missile or spell-cast >>Well, the French will certainly win at Agincourt under these rules. Seiously, >>longbows fire a ***LOT*** faster than once every 12 (or even 6 with RQ4 >>seconds. No way. In a 12 second round, to loosen three arrows, you have to be damn quick. Two is well possible, one is already an aimed shot (i.e. at specific location for any distance below 40 metres). > The French's problem at Agincourt wasn't longbows firing 15 shots/round. > The silly fools charged into a mudhole and got stuck. The Agincourt-style > volley is the exact opposite of firing and reloading as fast as you can. > People firing and reloading quickly lose their cool and screw up, wasting > their ammunition. The point of volley fire is to load deliberately and > wait until your officer gives the order to let fly; it keeps the troops > steady and maximizes the effectiveness of their fire. Another point was that about 50% of the arrows received impale results. (The French knights wore plate over chain, giving them RQ3 15 points of armour, RQ4 still 9 or 10.) Did the English all have skills in the 250%? > The question of how many shots can you fire per round depends on whether > you're safe on an archery practice field with a stationary target or in > the middle of a bloodbath with all Hell breaking loose. Even in a live > wargame, I can tell you it plays Hell with your concentration. But I > covered this above. Quite the opposite, from my personal experience. With adrenaline high, a lot of people get into bow/axe/(insert weapon of choice) trance, and fire/slash to their utmost effectivity. I certainly grow with the cchallenge when doing archery tournaments. >>I will admit to a biased viewpoint here; in my world (as in the AncientWorld >>on Earth, according to my limited knowledge) cavalry and mounted combatare not >>common. > They're common in Prax, though. Since that's the main setting in print > it's crazy not to have straightforward rules for mounted combat. Taken from earth's history. Once you enter Asia or eyastern Europe, fighting on foot seems to have been the exception rather than the rule until you reached India or China. -- Joerg Baumgartner rq4@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.19/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA23737; Sat, 18 Dec 93 15:57:01 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA06349; Sat, 18 Dec 93 16:56:46 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 18 Dec 93 16:50:27 EDT From: "Newton" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: something completely different Date: Sat, 18 Dec 93 09:55:08 CST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <2CF8FA76003@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> OK, maybe re-writing the rules from the ground up at this stage might not be such a hot idea. I'll try keeping future suggestions more modest and easily implemented. Here's one: I was impressed with the way Elric! categorized Sleight as a craft and reduced Devise to a DEX roll. Why not get rid of Conceal, Devise, and Sleight, replacing them with appropriate crafts? As the rules stand now, an Agimori and a Pelorian can both have Devise, and each uses it to perform completely different tasks. As for Conceal, the explanation in the books describe everything from building secret doors to hiding weapons to camouflaging elephants. I really see no need for it at all. If you want to conceal something, either it takes specific craftsy knowledge, like building a secret compartment, or it requires sheer ingenuity of the purloined letter variety, not skill. Conceal and Devise and generic and vague, where crafts are specific and easily understood. how's that? Newton  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.19/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA14501; Sat, 18 Dec 93 21:53:32 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA13103; Sat, 18 Dec 93 22:53:27 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 18 Dec 93 22:45:26 EDT From: David Dunham (via RadioMail) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: something completely different Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1993 19:53:05 PST 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" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <2D5813B4B39@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >Here's one: I was impressed with the way Elric! categorized Sleight as >a craft and reduced Devise to a DEX roll. Why not get rid of Conceal, >Devise, and Sleight, replacing them with appropriate crafts? I believe RQ4 is already headed down the slippery slope of overloading Craft. Why not make all skills Craft? Weapons could be. Everything could be either a Craft or a Lore -- and the game would be unwieldy. >As the rules stand now, an Agimori and a Pelorian can both have Devise, >and each uses it to perform completely different tasks. As for Conceal, >the explanation in the books describe everything from building secret >doors to hiding weapons to camouflaging elephants. I really see no >need for it at all. If you want to conceal something, either it takes >specific craftsy knowledge, like building a secret compartment, or it >requires sheer ingenuity of the purloined letter variety, not skill. >Conceal and Devise and generic and vague, where crafts are specific >and easily understood. Yes, but there's no Ingenuity in the game. And I imagine there's a lot one can learn about camouflaging stuff -- I presume the Army teaches it. Crafts are specific and easily understood only if the subcategories are reasonable. For example, I disagree with Dorastor, which made Farming a Craft skill. Totally unnecessary (Plant Lore covers it), and it's a skill totally unlike any other Craft, since you don't make something. David Dunham * Software Designer * Pensee Corporation Voice/Fax: 206 783 7404 * AppleLink: DDUNHAM * Internet: ddunham@radiomail.net "I say we should listen to the customers and give them what they want." "What they want is better products for free." --Scott Adams  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.19/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA23456; Sun, 19 Dec 93 02:58:55 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA18004; Sun, 19 Dec 93 03:58:38 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 19 Dec 93 3:50:49 EDT From: Carl Fink To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: RQ IV Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1993 03:58:17 -0500 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <2DA984F58BB@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) writes: >There's a draft AT AH? Jeez, I though the project was pretty much dead? It's not quite dead yet!  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.19/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA25502; Sun, 19 Dec 93 04:44:28 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA19197; Sun, 19 Dec 93 05:44:19 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 19 Dec 93 5:36:19 EDT From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: something completely different Date: Sun, 19 Dec 93 02:23:37 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <2DC5B290766@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> "Newton" writes: > > Here's one: I was impressed with the way Elric! categorized Sleight as > a craft and reduced Devise to a DEX roll. Why not get rid of Conceal, > Devise, and Sleight, replacing them with appropriate crafts? Well, my resistance to this would be partly based on the fact I already have a problem with where Crafts are generically located; as knowledge skills. I won't deny that some crafts are more mental than physical in nature, but I can't help but think that some should be manipulation rather than knowledge based (anybody out there really want to try and convince me that strength and coordination are insiginificant factors in a blacksmith? It'll be some job.) At least Sleight strikes me as a skill where Dexterity is FAR too big an issue to be ignored. Probably Devise, too. > > requires sheer ingenuity of the purloined letter variety, not skill. This, however, implies that sort of ingenuity can't be learned. Which I don't buy. ------------------------------ shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) or qed!shadow The QED BBS -- (310)420-9327  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.19/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA25508; Sun, 19 Dec 93 04:44:36 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA19200; Sun, 19 Dec 93 05:44:32 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 19 Dec 93 5:36:26 EDT From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RQ IV Date: Sun, 19 Dec 93 02:34:30 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <2DC5B3958CA@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Carl Fink writes: > Shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) writes: > > >There's a draft AT AH? Jeez, I though the project was pretty much dead? > > It's not quite dead yet! > I'm certainly glad to here that; I thought you folks were definitely on the right track. ------------------------------ shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) or qed!shadow The QED BBS -- (310)420-9327  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.20/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA11033; Mon, 20 Dec 93 19:45:08 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA02347; Mon, 20 Dec 93 20:44:21 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 20 Dec 93 20:31:07 EDT From: graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: RQ4 at AH? Date: Tue, 21 Dec 93 12:40:45 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <3035C4C1BCC@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Carl Fink writes: >Without going into any details at this point, the draft currently at >Avalon Hill Sorry to ask for details, but is this the final draft, or is another round of playtesting planned? Has it changed much since OJ's last major posting on this list (on reducing damage and changing training, as I recall). I'm not asking for a review, just how the draft has been evolving. Graeme Lindsell a.k.a gal502@huxley.anu.edu.au  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.20/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA08452; Tue, 21 Dec 93 13:48:23 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA07482; Tue, 21 Dec 93 14:46:56 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 21 Dec 93 14:48:03 EDT From: Carl Fink To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Current draft Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1993 14:46:01 -0500 (EST) 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: <31567B60BDE@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> The draft AH is evaluating is very different from the last widely circulated draft.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.20/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA25476; Tue, 21 Dec 93 18:46:29 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA19606; Tue, 21 Dec 93 19:46:22 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 21 Dec 93 19:47:19 EDT From: Peter Maranci To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Current draft Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1993 17:52:51 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <31A66473D61@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> * Carl Fink wrote: > The draft AH is evaluating is very different from the last > widely circulated draft. Uh oh. That sounds a bit ominous. Has anybody heard any details about this draft? Who's in charge of it? If AH handles it the way they've handled RQ3 marketing, this could be the final nail in the coffin... -->Pete ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Maranci Malden, Massachusetts pete@slough.mit.edu or rune@trystero.com or rune@ace.com "Hey! Your Tien fell in my Atyar!" "Well, your Atyar got in my Tien!" Thanatar -- two great Chaos Gods that go great together!  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.20/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA13565; Tue, 21 Dec 93 21:30:56 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA23434; Tue, 21 Dec 93 22:30:28 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 21 Dec 93 22:30:03 EDT From: Carl Fink To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: current draft Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1993 22:29:30 -0500 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <31D2214479C@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Peter (Rune) Maranci writes: R> Uh oh. That sounds a bit ominous. Has anybody heard any details >about this draft? Who's in charge of it? Um, me. And Oliver Jovanovic, and Mike McGloin. >If AH handles it the way they've >handled RQ3 marketing, this could be the final nail in the coffin... And we know that, and they won't.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.20/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA16321; Tue, 21 Dec 93 22:47:55 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA24848; Tue, 21 Dec 93 23:47:52 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 21 Dec 93 23:47:04 EDT From: David Cheng To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Current draft Date: Tue, 21 Dec 93 23:44:29 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <31E6BED5FC6@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> # Uh oh. That sounds a bit ominous. Has anybody heard any details # about this draft? Who's in charge of it? If AH handles it the way they've # handled RQ3 marketing, this could be the final nail in the coffin... # -->Pete Carl is being evasive. Shame on him for dangling scraps in front of us without giving away any real info. This is not in the holiday spirit of giving! Put up or shut up! ;-) I will put up: Oliver Jovanovic, with an edited gang, took the voluminous feedback from the 2.0 draft and made major changes. They made up a full-text version and professoinally DTP'd it. The first copy went to Avalon Hill, and prompted good interest. Only a select few have seen it, for proofreading purposes more than for feedback purposes. I am one of those few. No, I don't have the time to relate the changes. Generically: * OJ claims combat is much smoother/faster. I have not playtested it. * Many communication skills have been written so as to facilitate role-playing over roll-playing. Ex: Make an Oratory roll - the GM might tell you ONE hint as to what it would take to convince the person you're talking to. A crit might tell you exactly what it will take. Either way, you still have to roleplay it out. * Brand spanking new shaman rules; very different from anything we've seen before, and very neat. * Much smoother character pre-gen templates. * Weapon and armor damage/values have been reduced, as per the discussion here on the discussion. * Lots of stuff I can't remember. I only gave it a quick skim, due to other time demands (see my ranting on the RQ-Con updates). And, I only read the stuff that looked new. Lots of little things, like you always defend vs spells at full POW, would have escaped me if OJ didn't tell me directly. Oliver Jovanovic and Mike McGloin met with Eric (CEO ?) and Jack (Pres) Dott of Avalon Hill last Thursday. They are enthusiastic about the response they got, but nothing has been signed. They left with a much better opinion of AH and the Dott's than when they went in. I will personally be coordinating with OJ and Jack Dott how news and progress will be "announced (?)" at RuneQuest-Con. It has always been intended that RQ-Con would be more than games. I don't think I'm overstating things when I say that Jack Dott will be looking for _serious, CONstructive_ input as to what direction RQ will take from this point on. See y'all in 24 days. * 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 cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.20/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA16710; Tue, 21 Dec 93 23:07:33 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25109; Wed, 22 Dec 93 00:07:33 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 22 Dec 93 0:06:42 EDT From: David Cheng To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Current draft Date: Wed, 22 Dec 93 0:04:06 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <31EC0686158@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> # I will personally be coordinating with OJ and Jack Dott how news and # progress will be "announced (?)" at RuneQuest-Con. It has always been # intended that RQ-Con would be more than games. I don't think I'm # overstating things when I say that Jack Dott will be looking for # _serious, CONstructive_ input as to what direction RQ will take from # this point on. I want to add to this a little bit. What the Dotts want your feedback on is stuff like: * Should RQ4 be a new edition, or a supplement to RQ3? * What will increase the sales of RQ? *** What kind of products do you want to see? What are you most likely to spend your limited dollars on? They have limited dollars too, and CANNOT produce everything we would like to see. What does your consumer priority list look like? Let's not forget Greg Stafford's role in all this. Obviously, his word carries much weight too (understatement). Happy Holidays, -DC  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.20/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA16931; Tue, 21 Dec 93 23:17:05 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25287; Wed, 22 Dec 93 00:17:04 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 22 Dec 93 0:16:13 EDT From: jsnead@netcom.com (John R. Snead) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Current draft Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1993 21:17:12 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <31EE8900C91@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> The rules for Oratory and such sound great, intersting, a way to make role-playing of such skills less dice based, while still letting people who have less ability at this than their characters have a hope. Oh, I'm new to the list, how can I get access to any draft of the RQ4 rules to playtest or whatever Thanks -John jsnead@netcom.com  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.20/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA03199; Wed, 22 Dec 93 07:34:29 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA05858; Wed, 22 Dec 93 08:34:18 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 22 Dec 93 8:32:20 EDT From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Development of Cults and Sorcery from Shamanism Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1993 12:04:30 MEZ Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <32732BF6240@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Guy Robinson writes: > One aspect that has been missing from any Runequest that I have seen is a good > explanation of how cults and sorcery might develop from shamanistic practices. > RuneQuest 3 moved to further seperate Shamen and Priests. I felt this weakened > the magic ecology that existed within earlier versions. The addition of > Sorcerers was not a bad thing in themselves but their magic system was > appalling. Not appalling, but neither fully thought through, IMO. Greg's early stories about the West all have wizards in them, so I think they were in Glorantha all the time. The RQ3 sorcery has some difficulties describing these guys, though. > One good thing RuneQuest 3 provided was the differing kinds of spirits. The > absence of Disease spirits in earlier editions was a glaring omission. One of the worst things about the spirits is that the supposed experts in dealing with them cannot control a spirit possessing MP, since to do so they have to fight it down to Zero MP. And only full shamans, not assistant shamans or hedge-wizards, could use this spell. RQ4 2.0 has done some steps in this direction. I'd like to see more. > In the earlier additions there were suggestions of a Power economy which could > enable a Shamen who encountered a Diety on the spirit plane to establish a cult > and receive Rune Magic as a priest of that Deity. It should also be made clear whether and how this is reusable, and that certain cultures do so regularly. > In whatever forms of magic Runequest 4 plumps for I think there should be > guidelines and discussions on how a particular type of magic could be derived > from another. Part of this should include a re-unification of the magic > system. Do you mean from cultural viewpoints ("sorcery is shamanism in scientific terms"), a meta system, or cross overs? What I'd like to see is a guideline how to make local magic use unique by describing shortly how it deviates from "mainstream" magic, especially WRT Stygian heresies nad Lunar and Eastern magics. > Magic should be socially applicable to it's setting and if Runequest 4 seeks to > straddle a number of fantasy genres then a flexible, extendable and > characterfull > magic system is needed. Offering seperate, disconnected magic systems is not a > good way of providing this. True. -- Joerg Baumgartner rq4@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.20/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA07206; Wed, 22 Dec 93 09:14:02 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA10034; Wed, 22 Dec 93 10:13:57 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 22 Dec 93 10:11:52 EDT From: "Loren J. Miller" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Current draft Date: 22 Dec 1993 10:11:24 -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: <328DBB34C35@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David Cheng writes: > # overstating things when I say that Jack Dott will be looking for > # _serious, CONstructive_ input as to what direction RQ will take from > # this point on. Some of this is no-brainer marketing stuff. You have to make your product visible to distributers and get good shelf position in the stores. The best way to make it visible to distributers is to release at least one RQ item per month. The best way to get good shelf position is to get reviews in the magazines and get some hype going so the game store owners will feature it. Heck, with reviews and hype US shops might even *order* copies of adventures so that consumers don't have to special-order all their RQ material, as they do now. > I want to add to this a little bit. What the Dotts want your feedback > on is stuff like: > * Should RQ4 be a new edition, or a supplement to RQ3? RQ4 *has* to be a new edition, because otherwise it will not get reviewed in the magazines and sales will not increase. It also has to have something *new* about it that advances the roleplaying art. That way reviewers can truthfully hail it as an advance in roleplaying. > * What will increase the sales of RQ? AH and Chaosium have to appear to invest a certain amount of energy into RQ for the FRP magazines and FRP gamers to take it seriously. They need to (1) release a *new* edition of RQ and (2) pump up the release schedule. I already mentioned the new edition, so now to releases. I'd think the easiest way to pump up the release schedule would be to release one-off adventures in a stapled wallet format with plenty of maps and gimmicks. This kind of adventure is easier to write than the full-length stuff, especially for a new writer. We had a lot of fun back in 1982 with "Tales of Duck Tower" and "Snakepipe Hollow" and if more good or even mediocre one-off scenarios had been available we would have played RQ a lot longer. I know it's borrowing from TSR's textbook, but it worked for them. Lots of the adventures in TotRM could be adapted and expanded to this format. AH wouldn't want to *only* reprint old adventures, because that wouldn't appeal to people who already have the adventures, but reprints and revisions are a lot easier to design than new adventures. This would also appeal to people who don't play RQ, especially teens and working adults (teens because they don't know how to write adventures and working adults because they don't have the time), who are a much bigger audience than the people who *do* play RQ. Of course, in order for shops to order adventures they'd have to be attuned to RQ already, and for that you need a new edition and the marketing push that goes with it. Two words are especially important for advertising this push: NEW ART. > *** What kind of products do you want to see? What are you most > likely to spend your limited dollars on? They have limited > dollars too, and CANNOT produce everything we would like to see. > What does your consumer priority list look like? I like one-off scenarios because they take a big burden off the GM's shoulders. Since I usually GM in RQ games that is good. Not only does it make my GMing easier, it makes it more likely that someone else will try GMing RQ, and I like playing RQ even more than GMing it... actually I like playing RQ *much* more than GMing it. > Let's not forget Greg Stafford's role in all this. Obviously, his > word carries much weight too (understatement). The beauty of the strategy that I have suggested is that you don't need to involve Greg so much if you concentrate on adventures rather than deep background. Any Glorantha expert will maintain a minimum of consistency, and a minimum is what you need now that the "One True Way" syndrome has crumbled. The disparate approaches to Glorantha in the different adventures will emphasize how flexible RQ is as a game system that can handle hack-n-slash as well as it handles freeform roleplaying and political plotting. AH can continue to print deep background, and Chaosium will continue to print soft background, but the adventures will carry most of the marketing load. 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 cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.20/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA09650; Wed, 22 Dec 93 10:02:59 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA12113; Wed, 22 Dec 93 11:01:45 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 22 Dec 93 10:59:29 EDT From: David Cheng To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Current draft Date: Wed, 22 Dec 93 10:59:51 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <329A7C53139@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Loren Miller sez: # Some of this is no-brainer marketing stuff. You have to make your # product visible to distributers and get good shelf position in the # stores. The best way to make it visible to distributers is to release # at least one RQ item per month. The best way to get good shelf While I agree with you 100%, I think we all have to accept the current reality: there ain't no way AH will commit resources to release a product every month. 4 per year if we're lucky, 6 per year if they're low-investment, like short one-off modules (as per Loren's suggestion, below). # position is to get reviews in the magazines and get some hype going so # the game store owners will feature it. Heck, with reviews and hype US # shops might even *order* copies of adventures so that consumers don't # have to special-order all their RQ material, as they do now. Like I've said before, Jack Dott has to hear more stories like this. I've brought it to his attention, and he just ~doesn't believe~ that an AH product isn't available on the shelves... Have you guys seen the reviews in _The Gamer_, and in the most recent issue of _Dragon_ (#200)? Very favorable. # AH and Chaosium have to appear to invest a certain amount of energy # into RQ for the FRP magazines and FRP gamers to take it seriously. # They need to (1) release a *new* edition of RQ and (2) pump up the # release schedule. Again, I agree 100%. # I already mentioned the new edition, so now to releases. I'd think the # easiest way to pump up the release schedule would be to release # one-off adventures in a stapled wallet format with plenty of maps and # gimmicks. This kind of adventure is easier to write than the # full-length stuff, especially for a new writer. We had a lot of fun # back in 1982 with "Tales of Duck Tower" and "Snakepipe Hollow" and if # more good or even mediocre one-off scenarios had been available we # would have played RQ a lot longer. I know it's borrowing from TSR's # textbook, but it worked for them. Lots of the adventures in TotRM # could be adapted and expanded to this format. AH wouldn't want to # *only* reprint old adventures, because that wouldn't appeal to people # who already have the adventures, but reprints and revisions are a lot # easier to design than new adventures. It is my sense that Ken Rolston doesn't agree with this philosophy. The way I see it, he thinks campaign-length scenario + good background material (min 120 pgs total) = good supplement. This is a critical issue, as Ken probably has more clout with AH than anyone else. How many of us agree with Ken's philosophy? How many of us are of the "more simpler products is better" faction? # The beauty of the strategy that I have suggested is that you don't # need to involve Greg so much if you concentrate on adventures rather # than deep background. Any Glorantha expert will maintain a minimum of # consistency, and a minimum is what you need now that the "One True # Way" syndrome has crumbled. The disparate approaches to Glorantha in # the different adventures will emphasize how flexible RQ is as a game # system that can handle hack-n-slash as well as it handles freeform # roleplaying and political plotting. AH can continue to print deep # background, and Chaosium will continue to print soft background, but # the adventures will carry most of the marketing load. I like this line of thought a lot. (We need to switch AH and Chaosium in this last sentence, though, right?) I thank Loren for grabbing and running with the torch I lit last night. Please, lets keep this thread going strong. I'd like to have lots of food for thought, so we can have some good, heated, productive discussions face-to-face at the RQ-Con "RQ Renaissance" seminar. Happy Holidays, * David Cheng (off-line from Dec 23 - Dec 27 or so)  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.20/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA22542; Wed, 22 Dec 93 14:11:48 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA24098; Wed, 22 Dec 93 15:11:30 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 22 Dec 93 15:09:24 EDT From: "Loren J. Miller" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Current draft Date: 22 Dec 1993 15:09:11 -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: <32DD1CA57C2@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David Cheng replies to me: > It is my sense that Ken Rolston doesn't agree with this philosophy. > The way I see it, he thinks campaign-length scenario + good background > material (min 120 pgs total) = good supplement. > > This is a critical issue, as Ken probably has more clout with AH than > anyone else. How many of us agree with Ken's philosophy? How many > of us are of the "more simpler products is better" faction? While I think that longer and more complete products are better ones, I think that shorter, simpler products are easier to produce on the kind of schedule you need to succeed. Production and art costs are also lower, and margins are higher. They're also easier for free-lancers to do with minimal supervision and editing. > # AH can continue to print deep > # background, and Chaosium will continue to print soft background, but > # the adventures will carry most of the marketing load. > > I like this line of thought a lot. (We need to switch AH and Chaosium > in this last sentence, though, right?) Oops, sorry, but not quite. Change "deep background" to "hard background" to fix the sentence. AH will publish definitive background that presents the world in a ready-to-play manner (aka "hard background") and Chaosium will publish stories and myth-cycles (aka "soft background") that bring the world to life. 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 cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.20/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA00167; Wed, 22 Dec 93 16:33:34 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01086; Wed, 22 Dec 93 17:33:25 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 22 Dec 93 17:31:09 EDT From: David Dunham (via RadioMail) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Current draft Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1993 14:33:08 PST 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" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <3302F90568E@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >* Should RQ4 be a new edition, or a supplement to RQ3? I don't know what the current definition of RQ4 is, but if it's intended to simplify or correct RQ3, it shouldn't be a supplement. >* What will increase the sales of RQ? It might help to know what RuneQuest _is_. Vampire, Werewolf, Mage are pretty obvious. GURPS is obviously a generic game system. Traveller is pretty obvious. But what is RuneQuest? I've always treated it something like "The Game of Bronze-Age Adventure," but that's not really true of RQ3. Come up with a High Concept that defines RQ's niche. Price is a consideration. I'm richer now than when I was in my rolegaming prime, but products are EXPENSIVE these days! It will be a challenge to cut printing costs without reducing quality. Getting rid of the boxes (which weren't a useful size anyway) is a plus. I agree that decent art is a must. It would be helpful if there were more RQ scenarios in magazines. I suspect the lack is mostly because nobody's submitting them. Perhaps A-H could have a program where they match magazine payment to the author. >*** What kind of products do you want to see? What are you most > likely to spend your limited dollars on? They have limited > dollars too, and CANNOT produce everything we would like to see. > What does your consumer priority list look like? I lean towards Gloranthan material, not so much because I prefer Glorantha, but because (other than art) I have come to expect that Gloranthan RQ material is of higher quality than non-Gloranthan. I want material I can use in my variant campaign. This means either campaign settings (like Griffin Mountain) or short scenarios. Longer scenarios tied to specifics ("Troubled Waters") are very difficult to use. Background material with lots of short scenarios would be fine -- specifically Sartar. I also like stuff with more reuse value. I remember using products like Griffin Mountain, Foes, and Plunder all the time in my RQ2 days. It's hard to imagine Dorastor (good as it is) as a work I'd refer to if not running a Dorastor campaign. ># position is to get reviews in the magazines and get some hype going so ># the game store owners will feature it. Heck, with reviews and hype US ># shops might even *order* copies of adventures so that consumers don't ># have to special-order all their RQ material, as they do now. > >Like I've said before, Jack Dott has to hear more stories like this. >I've brought it to his attention, and he just ~doesn't believe~ that >an AH product isn't available on the shelves... It is absolutely true, in Seattle I've had to go to multiple game stores to find stuff and even then have had trouble. RuneQuest just isn't carried enthusiastically. You tend to find stuff like the boxed character sheets, and not much else. David Dunham * Software Designer * Pensee Corporation Voice/Fax: 206 783 7404 * AppleLink: DDUNHAM * Internet: ddunham@radiomail.net "I say we should listen to the customers and give them what they want." "What they want is better products for free." --Scott Adams  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.20/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA04827; Wed, 22 Dec 93 18:18:25 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA04380; Wed, 22 Dec 93 19:18:12 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 22 Dec 93 19:16:04 EDT From: Peter Maranci To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Current draft Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1993 18:46:58 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <331EE3E6236@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> I'll forgo the extended quoting. I'm glad to hear that RQ4 wasn't written by some AH wargamers in a basement somewhere (I can see it now: "This is too confusing. Make it all run on a hex-map, and dump all skills other than combat."). 8^>} Is the current version now set in stone, or is the intention to get some feedback at RQ-Con? Will Jack Dott be at RQ-Con? I'm trying to figure out what sort of product would work best to increase the sales of RQ. It's a difficult call, because I buy *all* RQ products -- even back in the days when my dollars were limited (well, they're limited now too, but not as much -- if a $100.00 RQ supplement ever comes out, I may think twice). Overall, though, I have to say that 4 releases per year is fairly dubious. New gamers won't be brought in unless they see the name RuneQuest on the new products shelves frequently -- more than every three months. The best approach to releases might be a mixed one: three to four high-quality in-depth scenario/deep background packs spaced throughout the year. In between these, AH could release small and cheap adventure supplements -- saddle-stitched with a cardboard cover. The material for these could be gleaned from updates of RQ2 material, stuff that's been in _Tales_ and the _RQ Adventures Fanzine_, and possibly other sources -- there's a lot of high-quality stuff out there. The point is that this stuff should be very *entertaining*. I love Glorantha, but there are times when even *I* have a hard time following the finest esoterica of the background! Perhaps we've been guilty of a sort of intellectual snobbery. It's fine to aim high, and there's no reason to stop doing so -- but would anyone out there have started playing RQ if it was as dauntingly "deep" and complex as it is now? When I started in college RQ2 seemed very deep -- but that was nothing compared to what we have now. So: release three or four high-density comprehensive major supplements each year, plus three to ten smaller adventures. The booklets should feature the sort of neat ideas that made RQ2 so much fun to read: those great "found item" lists, unusual NPCs and their tricks, strange creatures, etc.. Lively, interesting adventures that can be enjoyed by intelligent teens, in other words. Those with more Glorantha experience would be able to enrich the booklet adventures with their added knowledge. Enough rambling. Oh, except for one thing: the art on the booklets is *crucial*. Those are what would pick up new players, not the major "deep" works; therefore the art on the cover has to be extremely eye-catching and well done, and there has to be enough decent art and such inside to keep them from throwing the book aside in disgust. After all, we're competing with systems like _Shadowrun_ and the White Wolf games -- it's no coincidence that the art of those games is the best thing about them. It seems to me that if done carefully the booklets could be extremely cheap to produce... One last thing: NO RQ4 CHARACTER SHEET PACKS. The RQ4 book should include a photocopiable character sheet. The effort spent in producing those lame "packs" should be spent on publishing another supplement. Just my two cents... -->Pete ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Maranci Malden, Massachusetts pete@slough.mit.edu or rune@trystero.com or rune@ace.com "Until you stalk and overrun, you can't devour anyone." --Tiger aphorism  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.20/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA09300; Thu, 23 Dec 93 17:45:02 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA10726; Thu, 23 Dec 93 18:44:22 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 23 Dec 93 18:39:46 EDT From: Henk.Langeveld@Holland.Sun.COM (Henk Langeveld - Sun Nederland) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: RuneQuest's Niche (follow-up on David Dunham) Date: Thu, 23 Dec 93 09:34:20 +0100 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <3495F0D5A5C@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> ______________________________________________________ ddunham@radiomail.net (David Dunham, via RadioMail): >>* What will increase the sales of RQ? >It might help to know what RuneQuest _is_. Vampire, Werewolf, Mage are >pretty obvious. GURPS is obviously a generic game system. Traveller is >pretty obvious. But what is RuneQuest? I've always treated it something >like "The Game of Bronze-Age Adventure," but that's not really true of RQ3. >Come up with a High Concept that defines RQ's niche. I don't know if it would help sales, but to me RQ has always been the game of "MYTH". What convinced me to buy RQ in the first place, twelve years back, was the suggestion of realism, the absence of class restrictions, and all that. It was THE superior RPG ruleset. After I bought my copy of RQ2, I read the short history of the world, explaining how "metals are the bones of dead gods", and such. I was hooked. Here was a game where characters were people with a history and background... Today, there are umpteen flexible and generic rpg systems available. Which is superior is not relevant anymore, if it ever was. I think the niche for RQ is defined by the mythological aspect, the way in which magic integrates with the world and society. Hey, and I didn't even mention the "G" worl^Hd... -- Henk | Henk.Langeveld@Sun.COM - Disclaimer: I don't speak for Sun. oK[] | My first law of computing: "NEVER make assumptions"  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.20/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA10882; Thu, 23 Dec 93 18:38:21 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA11880; Thu, 23 Dec 93 19:38:02 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 23 Dec 93 19:33:04 EDT From: David Dunham (via RadioMail) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RuneQuest's Niche (follow-up on David Dunham) Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1993 16:37:55 PST 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" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <34A445A5D88@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Henk wrote: >I don't know if it would help sales, but to me RQ has always >been the game of "MYTH". *sigh* There's not a single myth in the RQ3 box. >I think the niche for RQ is defined by the mythological aspect, >the way in which magic integrates with the world and society. This could be a good niche to target -- but it would require a new edition. The last RQ4 draft I saw was closer than RQ3, but still had a long way to go to claim the mythological niche. But given the marketing direction, the right elements could be added.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.20/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA16184; Sun, 26 Dec 93 00:32:25 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA21903; Sun, 26 Dec 93 01:32:04 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 26 Dec 93 1:18:09 EDT From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: "development" from shamanism Date: Sun, 26 Dec 93 01:31:45 -0500 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <3802BB125F6@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> First, a brief aside: The proper plural of "shaman" is "shamans". The original word, from the Tungus language, is actually without gender. The "-man" fragment actually means "to lift" or "to be raised" and has NOTHING to do with gender. Second, how do we know that sorcery and theism descended from shamanism? After all, according to Zzabur and his adherents, sorcery was the first and eldest form of magic, and theism and shamanism are mere degenerations. Of course, the Mostali maintain that sorcery was the eldest magic, and the apostate Zzabur illicitly taught it to the humans he had been hanging around with (What!?, you exclaim, Zzabur was a Mostali??? How else could he have known sorcery, which comes from Mostal as the only proper way to do magic?) Then again, according to the theists, sorcery is probably some sort of godlearner holdover and shamanism is just a degenerate form of their superior gnosis (the theists' gnosis, that is). I LOVED the parallel explanations found in the "Cults of" books, which explained things from all of the major Gloranthan philosophies: Theist, Naturalist, and Humanist. I think we need to remember all three when looking at any game to model Glorantha, no?  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.20/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA02402; Tue, 28 Dec 93 17:10:34 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA23876; Tue, 28 Dec 93 18:10:19 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 28 Dec 93 18:10:39 EDT From: Carl Fink To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Re: Current draft Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1993 18:09:47 -0500 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <3C0D03C7DEC@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Wayne (shadow@qedbbs.com) Shaw writes: >Did it get that bad? I half felt like I was butting in when I got access >to draft 1.0; I hope you folks didn't mind some of us who were not >directly polled the first time around putting in our two cents. At the >time, I didn't have useful Usenet access, so if someone hadn't loaned me >a copy, I wouldn't have even known a new version was under development. Basically, we wanted to know about everyone who got a copy, and we wanted everyone who got a copy to give us playtest comments. By subscribing to this list, you've done both. No problem.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.20/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA05067; Tue, 28 Dec 93 18:33:45 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25302; Tue, 28 Dec 93 19:33:44 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 28 Dec 93 19:33:49 EDT From: David Cheng To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Current draft Date: Tue, 28 Dec 93 19:30:12 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <3C235853626@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> # Carl Fink spoke of not wanting the next draft of RQ4 to be too widely # distributed, which is certainly reasonable, especially if he is helping # write it, but please inform us of what we can do to become eligible to # playtest and/or read the most recent drafts of RQ4. # # Its seems that the expertise of the people on this list could be quite # useful in playtesting and perfecting the RQ4 rules, and I am not sure # that I can see any problem with 'too many' playtesters - if we give too # much feedback, ignore it... and we're still all gonna go out and buy the # new rules when they come out, so it's not like there's a downside. # # Maybe I'm off-base, but PLEASE tell the uninformed among us how we can # get involved in producing the new edition of a game we all love dearly. I belive the deal is like this: OJ & Company know that (probably) over 100 folks got a copy of the RQ4 2.0 draft in some form or another. However, they got meaningful feedback from far fewer than this number of people. I think the way to be on the distribution list for the 3.0 edition will be to have a good track record established with Oliver already. * 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 cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.20/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA04263; Wed, 29 Dec 93 03:44:35 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA02856; Wed, 29 Dec 93 04:44:21 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 29 Dec 93 4:44:40 EDT From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Playtesting Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1993 10:33:30 MEZ Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <3CB63932225@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> I can see why Carl is worried about the current distribution of the draft. Even though I received mine second hand (or further remote), and though I might be excluded from playtesting the final (or at least current) edition, this needs to be a limited edition - otherwise we undermine sales for AH by distributing the rules for "almost free". And let's face it, if RQ is to become a front row system again, it has to sell. Although an Earthdawn-like policy, with minimalized rules, a scenario and some insight in the world, could raise awareness. If FASA could afford to distribute printed flyers with really good art for free, AH could surely afford to distribute texts as Public Domain Software via the usual distributors (the net, computer shops) for virtually no production costs, and hook new customers into roleplaying as well as getting awareness among established roleplayers unfamiliar with RQ. Opinions? If there are new playtesting groups to be found, I'd suggest that Oliver Jovanovic makes an announcement how (or whether) to proceed. And I'd strongly suggest that he finds some playtesters unfamiliar with RQ, so that we get newcomers' feedback. One thing I would like to see in the rules or the flyers (and offer to co-work upon) is a story along the line of Biturian Varosh's travels through Prax. Since I agree that RuneQuest's main strength is the mythical aspect, intertwining a character's belief and his behaviour, the rules need to stress this aspect. How easier than with a well-written story giving examples? I don't mean rules examples like Rurik the Feisty or Cormac the Pict, although those help, too. If RQ4 is centred on Glorantha, then IMO it must give personalized views of the world and life within it. The story accompanying character creation must IMO contain a description of the initiation ritual the character undergoes, including sections "what the priest says and "what my father told me", and possibly examination tests along the lines of Paul Honigmann's (sp?) questionnaires. Choice of a career ought to have a mini-scenario of how the father (or whoever) and the character manage to get a guild contract or similar. Without too much problems AH could produce cheap but immensely useful additional character build-ups (instead of character sheets). This would increase the shelf-presence of RQ, provide a steady flow of new material (getting reviews etc), give scenario hooks, fleshed out NPCs etc. Instead of a Tarsh Pack we would get a Tarshite background booklet, a Sartarite background booklet, etc. The odd local cult could be tossed in (such as Geo, Telmor, Dorasta), a few local NPCs could be described and used for a digest. Heck, why not with two- or three-ring binding? Local influential persons are useful for any scenario, and with few changes can be transfered int other settings. This list might be a place to construct a sample pack as combined effort, as well as a forum for the playtesters. Opinions? -- Joerg Baumgartner rq4@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.20/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA12557; Wed, 29 Dec 93 09:18:27 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA10342; Wed, 29 Dec 93 10:18:07 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 29 Dec 93 10:18:30 EDT From: Tim Westlake To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RuneQuest's Niche Date: Wed, 29 Dec 93 14:38 GMT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <3D0F2D0619C@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> In-Reply-To: <3495F0D5A5C@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> I agree whole heartedly with Henk. The thing that has always appealed to me about RuneQuest is the feel of the environment. I always have been a big fan of Glorantha and still play RQ in Gloranthan worlds. The fit of the game system to the environment is so good that I would never think of using one without the other! The niche that it fits is broad, it can work on the Sticks and Shamans level (which realy isnt covered by anything else) up to the Heroic Myth level. It is for people who want depth to their gaming! Tim  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.20/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA16474; Wed, 29 Dec 93 10:51:56 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA12549; Wed, 29 Dec 93 11:51:43 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 29 Dec 93 11:51:55 EDT From: JOVANOVIC@CUCCFA.CCC.COLUMBIA.EDU To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Status report Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1993 11:52:16 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <3D282480AD3@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Pardon the delayed response, but I've been offline for a while. To bring people up to date, the current situation with RQIV is as follows. The product has basically been rewritten from scratch, taking into account the feedback and comments we've received from people as to what they would like to see. The current running title is RuneQuest: Adventures in Glorantha. As the name implies, the product draws heavily on the mythology and cultures of Glorantha for its background. Avalon Hill currenly appears very interested, though we're still trying to finalize things such as art budget, since we'd like the artwork to be as of high a quality as possible. They are currently looking at a release date of early mid 1994. With respect to playtesting, we certainly intend to continue, as the comments we've received to date have been quite helpful. Our playtest budget is currently non-existent, so we're going to have to be a bit more conservative, since we're going to end up covering the expenses out of our own pockets. The current version of the draft is a heavily laid out 200 odd page manuscript. It is currently undergoing final editing and some final rules adjustments (based in part on Greg Stafford's responses to some of the new rules). We hope to mail this draftout to roughly 40 playtest groups. 20 of these will be selected more or less at random from the groups that have so far been most helpful with their comments. 10 others will be going out to groups of people that have expressed interest in playtesting the product, also selected more or less at random. Finally, the last 10 will be going to groups that have never played RuneQuest before, as one of the things we'd like to do with this product is bring new blood into the game. In all of these cases, preference will be given to those groups that will actually try running the new rules, as at this point we're more interested in hands on comments. Given our time and budget constraints, that's about as much as we can handle at this point in time. Copies of the draft will also be available for people to look over at RuneQuest Con. If you haven't gotten in touch with me at all about being interested in playtesting RQ, feel free to drop me a line (see below for my email address, which has changed). Just be aware that there is a good sized group that has already expressed an interest. However, I will be sending copies of a summary of the draft (see below) to all those that express an interest. In addition, as time permits, I will be putting together a summary of the rules changes and what the draft contains in ASCII format for wider (free) electronic distribution. This document, probably 10 or so pages long, will allow people to get a good idea as to what the new rules look like, and will actually allow people to playtest a good chunk of the new rules (those sections that can be easily summarized). I will post this on the list when it is done and email it to the people I've gotten email from expressed interest in playtesting the rules We will go through all the feedback we get from both the full text and summarized versions of this new draft and incorporate them into the final version of the product. If the feedback calls for substantial changes, we will probably go through one more round of playtesting. Please be aware that my email response time for the next few weeks will be fairly slow, as I'm currently busy with both the draft and RuneQuest Con. Also, due to some domain changes at my place of work, my email address has changed. It is now simply "jovanovic@columbia.edu" I will post to the list as soon as the draft starts going into distribution, which I anticipate will happen within the next week or two. I'll probably be contacting some of you for surface mail addresses shortly. Thank you for your patience, Oliver Jovanovic  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.20/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA20589; Wed, 29 Dec 93 12:32:15 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA14880; Wed, 29 Dec 93 13:32:13 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 29 Dec 93 13:32:18 EDT From: Malcolm Cohen To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Status report Date: Wed, 29 Dec 93 18:31:27 WET Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <3D42FC555C8@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Dear Oliver, thank you for the status report. I would like to express my interest in playtesting the next draft of the RQ4 rules. I think I would belong in your second group as I was too late on the scene to make very many comments on the previous draft, and am certainly not a RuneQuest novice. All the best, -- ...........................Malcolm Cohen, NAG Ltd., Oxford, U.K. (malcolm@nag.co.uk)  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.20/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA27153; Wed, 29 Dec 93 14:57:08 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA18226; Wed, 29 Dec 93 15:57:00 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 29 Dec 93 15:57:13 EDT From: kxc22@po.cwru.edu (Karl Crandall) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RQ4 Rules Date: Wed, 29 Dec 93 15:56:35 -0500 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <3D699472388@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > I would be much obliged if someone could send me these RQ4 >playtest-version rules. Since my account is about to be shut down for winter >break, I would love it if someone could send me the rules care of > P1NADEAU@VAXC.STEVENS-TECH.EDU > > Thanks in advance. If someone sends you a copy could you forward it to me as well...Thanks. Karl Karl Crandall kxc22@po.cwru.edu  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.20/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA08426; Wed, 29 Dec 93 20:16:57 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA23774; Wed, 29 Dec 93 21:16:57 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 29 Dec 93 21:17:01 EDT From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Playtesting Date: Wed, 29 Dec 93 12:58:18 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <3DBEEEF2638@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) writes: > I can see why Carl is worried about the current distribution of the > draft. Even though I received mine second hand (or further remote), and > though I might be excluded from playtesting the final (or at least > current) edition, this needs to be a limited edition - otherwise we > undermine sales for AH by distributing the rules for "almost free". And > let's face it, if RQ is to become a front row system again, it has to > sell. > I think this is generally unwarrented; the only people who would not buy the final product because they have a playtest net distribution are the same people who'd just photocopy a friend's anyway. ------------------------------ shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) or qed!shadow The QED BBS -- (310)420-9327  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.20/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA09008; Wed, 29 Dec 93 20:39:07 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA22859; Wed, 29 Dec 93 20:20:04 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 29 Dec 93 20:24:59 EDT From: jsnead@netcom.com (John R. Snead) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Status report Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1993 17:19:58 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <3DAFB926065@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Thanks for the info on the state of RQ4. I've only recently joined this list, and have not had long to look over the previous version of RQ4. However, my group and I are long time RQ players, and would dearly love the opportunity to playtest the latest version of RQ4. As for the current version: Well, the change from dead at 0 general hp,, to dead at -hp was much needed, but it still does not addres on problem I've found in RQ combat. I like the system, but have trouble with the damage bonuses. It is too easy for some huge beefy PC to one-punch someone too death. Yes, this is heroic role-playing, but 1d6 damage bonuses for normal human PCs are perhaps a bit too heroic. The group I'm in replaces the 1d4 bonus with a +1 bonus, and the 1d6 bonus with a 1d4 bonus. Not a big change, but it does seem to make a difference. Just a suggestion. I look forward to hearing more. Thanks -John Snead jsnead@netcom.com  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.20/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA24859; Wed, 29 Dec 93 22:49:57 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25889; Wed, 29 Dec 93 23:49:50 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 29 Dec 93 23:50:00 EDT From: Mark Davidson To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: RQ Niche Date: Thu, 30 Dec 93 04:36 GMT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <3DE7AE45228@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> In-Reply-To: <331EE3E6236@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Forgoing all the commenting, having read several peoples ideas about how to market, and what to market for RQ I thought I'd add mine. I agrre with most of what has been said and looking at some of the other games stuff that I have bought thought that something that would sell well is small supplements like the Clan books for Vampire. For example you could have a book on the Clans of Sartar which showed how they interacted, what it meant to be a clan member, initiation, your views on the world etc. along with promenent clan members and histories. Or the Orlanth book, detailing the cult along with all assosiates (Ernalda, Yinkin, Barntar the Ploughman etc) and major heroes (like Harmast Barefoof). It could give examples of what happens on High Holy Days and during Sacred Time. Who are the major players in the cult (maybe with pictures). Again good art is very important now, with other products which will catch the eye faster if their art is better. Another point on art is that it would be worth using a standard format for cover art (at least round the edge) so that it can be instantly recognised as RuneQuest (again thinking of the White Wolf books where green is vampire, grey with an orange band is Ars Magica etc) as this makes the game stand out from the others. One last point, although I quite like the box sets, please tell AH that paper covers last about 10 mins and so should NEVER be used on this type of game.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.20/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA29160; Thu, 30 Dec 93 00:31:26 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA27493; Thu, 30 Dec 93 01:31:24 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 30 Dec 93 1:31:33 EDT From: David Cake To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RQ Niche Date: Thu, 30 Dec 93 14:30:29 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <3E02C1C0A18@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> I agree with the idea that small books that give enough info to play in a small area or with a certain type of character is a good idea that should be encouraged. However, I also think that combining this sort of thing with a few adventures is also a good idea, and this gives you something a lot like Sun County. But books that concentrate on certain types of characters are fine too - but have a definate tendency to balloon to large size in RQ. Look at Trollpack - even taking the adventures out, the amount of troll info is now probably more than one boxed set worth, between TrollPack and Troll Gods. Basically I think that the RQ has more than one niche to aim for, but it has two strong points, both overlapping with other games. One is that it is in many ways within the mainstream of the gaming hobby as gameworlds go, it is basically a heroic fantasy world, set in a strongly magic world, but put together with far more thought and depth of information than most. Basically, Glorantha is not too dissimilar in many ways to worlds like Greyhawk, Earthdawn Harn. The main difference is that it has had far more development and thought than most such worlds, and so RQ is positioned as a natural world for the person who has been playing RPGs for a long time, and wants to continue with the sort of game that they like, but also wants something more fulfilling and more interesting than yet another generic fantasy universe. Rather than promoting RQ as something quite unlike A D&D, we should be promoting it as a better A D&D. There are a number of games going for this sort of image, but most are simply the same old worlds with a more complex rules system. The current trend is definately for games to sell on the basis of game world. The days when an interesting and mildly innovative rules system with a bland game world (DragonQuest, for example, or more recently Dangerous Visions) could sell seem to be behind us, with things like ShadowRun and Vampire - very saleable game worlds, big marketing, and rules that are unexceptional - minimalist for Vampire, just not that good for SR first edition - walk off the shelves. RQ has a truly exceptional game world, and that could be enough, but Glorantha is great not because it makes snappy pictures and can be described nicely in a paragraph, it is great because of its complexity and depth of description, not things that are easily saleable. This presents a real marketing challence, how to get that part of the gaming community that appreciates that sort of thing. Ars Magica seems to be doing it, how do they do it? They certainly sell, and to much the same market as RQ is trying to sell to (fairly complex rules systems, so generally experienced gamers, and lots of complex interaction). The other strong point RQ has is as the game of myth. Basically, unlike a lot of people, I do not really think that this is where we should be pushing the hard sell, and definately not if there is going to be a very strong Glorantha base to it ( as Oliver indicated for the next draft). The reason why is because as a game of myth, there is some serious competition from games that deal in more familiar myths, such as Ars Magica and Pendragon. These games are quite myth based, and do not need as much introduction to the myths that they deal with. While I think that RQ makes a good rules system for such a role (Iliked the RQ Earth supplements a lot!) it does not seem to have worked, and so RQ seems to be the game of Glorantha. That it is a game of myth is part and parcel of Glorantha, but selling it as 'a game of myth' is going to be difficult to sell to people who have no understanding of Glorantha at all. Of course, once the HeroQuest game that has been promised (there where even demo game/playtest rumours not too long ago!) comes out, it will all change, as RQ will obviously take off as the low level mechanics system to go with the ground breaking new game of mythic interaction and cultural change!!! :-) :-) I for one am waiting! Cheers Dave  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.20/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA01929; Thu, 30 Dec 93 02:04:37 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA28786; Thu, 30 Dec 93 03:04:35 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 30 Dec 93 3:04:41 EDT From: Peter Maranci To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: RQIV Summary? Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1993 02:58:59 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <3E1BA3B2183@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> I can't help but wonder how useful comments on a summery of the playtest rules will be. Might be sort of difficult to get an accurate picture of the system... Is AH not solidly committed to putting out a new edition, then? What about the all-in-one edition of RQ3? Does anyone know? -->Pete ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Maranci Malden, Massachusetts pete@slough.mit.edu or rune@trystero.com or rune@ace.com "Until you stalk and overrun, you can't devour anyone." --Tiger aphorism  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.20/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA03345; Thu, 30 Dec 93 03:06:31 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA29538; Thu, 30 Dec 93 04:06:34 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 30 Dec 93 4:06:38 EDT From: Henk.Langeveld@Holland.Sun.COM (Henk Langeveld - Sun Nederland) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RQ Niche Date: Thu, 30 Dec 93 10:06:42 +0100 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <3E2C2BA70C3@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> _______________________________ (davidc@cs.uwa.oz.au (David Cake) _______________________________________________________________________________ > The other strong point RQ has is as the game of myth. Basically, unlike >a lot of people, I do not really think that this is where we should be pushing >the hard sell, and definately not if there is going to be a very strong >Glorantha base to it ( as Oliver indicated for the next draft). The reason why >is because as a game of myth, there is some serious competition from games >that deal in more familiar myths, such as Ars Magica and Pendragon. These games >are quite myth based, and do not need as much introduction to the myths that > they deal with. While I think that RQ makes a good rules system for such a role >(Iliked the RQ Earth supplements a lot!) it does not seem to have worked, and >so RQ seems to be the game of Glorantha. That it is a game of myth is part and >parcel of Glorantha, but selling it as 'a game of myth' is going to be difficult >to sell to people who have no understanding of Glorantha at all. I must agree on both points. In my answer to David's question about RuneQuest's niche I said that the niche *is* myth, in terms of the significance of religion and magic to society and the indi- vidual. Call it "applied Campbell" as I once wrote in a private message to Nick Brooke... However, I do not know if this niche can really be used from a marketing point of view. Would it appeal to potential buyers? > Of course, once the HeroQuest game that has been promised (there where >even demo game/playtest rumours not too long ago!) comes out, it will all >change, as RQ will obviously take off as the low level mechanics system to go >with the ground breaking new game of mythic interaction and cultural change!!! >:-) :-) I for one am waiting! > Cheers > Dave Do as Greg Fried: Just do it. Don't wait for a rulesystem, but get into the act. Think of it as MetaQuest, where the characters start to roleplay their gods, and re-enact their myths. -- Henk | Henk.Langeveld@Sun.COM - Disclaimer: I don't speak for Sun. oK[] | My first law of computing: "NEVER make assumptions"  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.20/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA19110; Thu, 30 Dec 93 12:09:31 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA11910; Thu, 30 Dec 93 13:09:08 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 30 Dec 93 13:09:36 EDT From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RQ Niche Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1993 10:08:48 PST 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" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.1. Message-Id: <3EBCD9F38FC@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Henk wrote >I said that the niche *is* myth >However, I do not know if this niche can really be used from >a marketing point of view. Would it appeal to potential buyers? I'm not a marketing expert, but I suspect it's more important to have _a_ niche than to have _no_ niche. Which is better? RQ is a good roleplaying game. or RQ is the game of roleplaying myths. I think the latter is a better reason to buy the game. I think RQ is the game of Glorantha begs the question. It may indeed be what the game is, but it's probably not a good marketing direction, because it doesn't tell the consumer anything. David Dunham * Software Designer * Pensee Corporation Voice/Fax: 206 783 7404 * AppleLink: DDUNHAM * Internet: ddunham@radiomail.net "I say we should listen to the customers and give them what they want." "What they want is better products for free." --Scott Adams